Geology of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin, Indiana

By ALLAN F. SCHNEIDER and HENRY H. GRAY

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SPECIAL REPORT 3

PRINTED BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF INDIANA BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA: 1966 r

STATE OF INDIANA Roger D. Branigin, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES John E. Mitchell, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY John B. Patton, State Geologist

FOI' sale by Geological Survey, Bloomington, Ind. 47401 Priee $1.SO CONTENTS 3

Page Page

Abstract ------5 Unconsolidated deposits- -Continued r Introduction ------6 Jessup Formation ------23 Geography of the basin ------6 Topography and drainage of the Method and scope of investigation - - - - 6 bedrock surface ------26 Physiography and drainage ------9 Bedrock units ------27 Physiographic units ------9 Summary of geologic history ------30 General statement ------9 Earlier depositional history ------30 Tipton Till Plain ---- - 9 Erosional interval ------32 Muscatatuck Regional Slope - - - - 9 Pleistocene history ------32 Scottsburg Lowland - - - - 9 Applied geology ------35 Norman Upland ------10 Topographic suitability ------35 Glacial moraines ------10 Leakage potential ------35 Drainage ------11 Bearing strength of foundation Unconsolidated deposits ------14 materials ------38 General statement ------14 Slope stability in the reservoir area -- 38 Thickness of drift ------14 Availability of construction Martinsville Formation ------16 materials ------39 Atherton Formation ------16 Conclusions and recommendations Outwash facies ------17 for further study ------39 Dune facies ------19 Literature cited ------40 Prospect Formation ------19 Appendix ------43 Trafalgar Formation ----- 20 Measured sections ------43 Kame facies - - - - - 22 Well records ------48

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Figure 1. Index map of Indiana showing area of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin (shaded) and physiographic divisions of Malott (1922) ------6

2. Location map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing drainage and culture ------7

3. Map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing regional slope of the basin (contours), mean direction of streamflow (arrow), and standard deviation of streamflow (sector) 11

4. Map showing unconsolidated deposits of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin ------12

5. Isopach map showing thickness of unconsolidated deposits in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin ------15

6. Map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing topography on the bedrock surface ------25

7. Map showing present drainage (blue) and inferred preglacial drainage (red) in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin 26

8, Map showing bedrock geology of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin ------28 4 ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Figure 9. Columnar section showing bedrock units of the Upper East Fork r Drainage Basin ------30 10. Map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing generalized geologic structure ------31

11. Map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing streams that drain areas of at least 100 square miles and areas that have relatively uniform relief of at least 50 feet per square mile (shaded) ------36

12. Map of southeastern part of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing areas of potentially cavernous and structurally weak bedrock ------37

TABLES

Page

Table 1. Principal sources of data used in preparing this report ------8

2. Size analyses of samples of the outwash facies of the Atherton Formation ----- 18

3. Size analyses of of the kame facies of the Trafalgar Formation ------22

4. Lithologic composition of gravel fractions from samples of the kame facies of the Formation ------23 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA r By Allan F. Schneider and Henry H. Gray ABSTRACT the drift is thin, but only in a narrow belt of high land at the southwestern edge of the ba­ Basic geologic information is essential to sin are unconsolidated deposits largely ab­ planning flood-control measures in the Upper sent. East Fork Drainage Basin, an area of about Bedrock exposed or recognized immedi­ 2, 300 square miles in east-central Indiana. ately below the drift cover in the Upper East Principal streams of the basin include the Fork Drainage Basin consists of bluish-gray Driftwood, Big Blue, Little Blue, and Flat­ shales and siltstones, black shales, lime­ rock Rivers; Sugar, Clifty, and Sand Creeks; stones and dolomites, and interbedded shales and the upper part of the East Fork of White and limestones totaling about 1,000 feet in River, from Columbus downstream to the thickness. These rocks range in age from south line of Bartholomew County. Shelby­ early Mississippian along the southwestern ville is nearly centrally located within the margin of the basin to late Ordovician along basin. the southeastern margin. Exposures are vir­ The present drainage system of the Upper tually limited to the southern part of the ba­ East Fork basin is dominated by a pattern of sin; in the central and northern parts these southwestward-flowing streams. Many of rocks are known mainly from subsurface these streams follow inherited valleys that records. were used by glacial meltwaters during the Geologic factors relevant to the construc­ Wisconsin Age of the Pleistocene Epoch. tion of dams and reservoirs in the Upper East Preglacial streams, however, flowed in a Fork Drainage Basin include topographic con­ more westerly direction, generally following ditions, leakage potential, availability of ma­ the regional slope of the bedrock surface. terials' and foundation conditions. Supplies Although the dip of the bedrock formations of suitable construction materials are ade­ is somewhat steeper thanthe slope of the bed­ quate and foundation problems do not appear rock surface, the close correspondence in serious, but on the basis of other geologic direction between the two clearly indicates factors the basin is much better suited to that the regional slope is structurally con­ relatively small dams and reservoirs than trolled. to large structures. Almost all the Upper East Fork Drainage Within the basin only a few areas are top­ Basin is blanketed by unconsolidated deposits ographically suitable for moderate-sized to of Pleistocene age, which in the southern part large multipurpose dams and reservoirs. In of the basin are thin but which thicken north­ these areas, however, through per­ ward to more than 300 feet. The most exten­ meable gravels or cavernous limestones is sive surficial deposit is till of the Trafalgar likely to constitute a major problem. Thus Formation (Wisconsin), which covers about an integrated plan of surface-water control 60 percent of the basin. Extending out from should be developed for the entire basin to beneath the lobate form of this unit is a cres­ achieve maximum overall benefits at mini­ cent-shaped zone a few miles wide around mum cost. the southern edge of the basin in which older Two types of structures should be con­ (Illinoian) tillassigned to the Jessup Forma­ sidered for the major controlling elements tion is at the surface. Broad belts of outwash in this integrated plan. First, in topograph­ of the Atherton Formationand narrower rib­ ically suitable sites that have drainage areas bons of alluvium mapped as the Martinsville of 50 to 250 square miles, consideration Formation cross the basin, principally along should be given to reservoirs of conventional the shallow northeast-southwest trending val­ design intended only for the temporary reten­ leys. Isolated kame and esker gravels are tion offloodwaters. Because of the relatively scattered across the upland, mainly in the short use period, leakage problems would be area of the Trafalgar Formation, and small minimized. Second, in areas of low relief areas of both dune sand and an older alluvial that have larger watersheds, broad low struc­ deposit, the Prospect Formation, occur in the tures should be considered. Shallow depths southwestern part of the basin. Bedrock out­ and resultant low pressures would help min­ crops are numerous in the southeast where imize leakage in these reservoirs.

5 6 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

INTRODUCTION by County, most of HancocK, Rush, Decatur, and Bartholomew Counties, much of Henry GEOGRAPHY OF THE BASIN and Johnson Counties, and parts of Jennings, r Marion, Fayette, Jackson, Brown, and Mad­ The area discussed in this report is the ison Counties. Principal cities are New Cas­ drainage basin of the upper part of the East tle, Greenfield, Rushville, Franklin, Shelby­ Fork of White River, an area of about 2, 300 ville, Columbus, and Greensburg (fig. 2). square miles in east-central Indiana (fig. 1). Several major highways and railroads cross This area, which is here designated the Upper the area. East Fork Drainage Basin, extends from just The Upper East Fork Drainage Basin is below the confluence of the East Fork with subelliptical in outline; its long axis trends Sand Creek in southeastern Bartholomew northeast-southwest. Although the eastern, County upstream to the headwaters of Big northern, and western rims of the basin are Blue and Flatrock Rivers in northeastern all fairly high, only the western divide, which Henry County (fig. 2), and includes all trib­ is defined by the crest of a range of hills, is utary drainage. This basin was designated prominent. The floor of the basin is for the by the Indiana Water Resources Study Com­ most part an undulating westward-sloping mittee (1956) as Indiana Watershed Area plain; the slope is so gradual, however, that Number 11. one may'be unaware that in crossing the ba­ Politically, the area includes all of Shel­ sin from Greensburg to Columbus, for in­ stance, he has descended about 350 feet. The ------1 lowest pOint inthe basin, about 570 feet above sea level, is at the junction of Sand Creek and

NORTHERN MORAINE AND the East Fork; the highestpoints, about 1, 180 LAKE REGION feet above sea level, are around the north­ eastern rim of the basin. Total relief thus exceeds 600 feet; local relief is about 50 feet per mile, but the figure varies considerably from one part of the basin to another. Most of the streams of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin occupy shallow valleys, the bottoms of which are only 20 or 30 feet TIPTON TILL PLAIN below the surface of the plain. Exceptions include the upper part of Big Blue River, which is rather deeply entrenched into gla­ cial deposits, and the two major streams of the southeastern part of the basin. Sand Creek and Clifty Creek, both of which have exca­ vated valleys as muchas 100 feet deep, partly into bedrock.

METHOD AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

Basic geologic information is essential to all aspects of water-resource studies. This report was prepared at the request of the In­ diana Flvod Control an!i Water Resources Commission to provide background data of a geologic nature for engineers making prelim­ inary appraisals of sites for hydraulic struc­ tures. The basic geologic data and interpre­ Figure 1. --Index map of Indiana showing tations presented are not restricted in appli­ area of the Upper East Fork Drainage cation, however, but are useful in several Basin (shaded) and physiographic divi­ planning and development fields. sions of Malott (1922). No new geologic fieldwork was undertaken in connection with the compilation of the text R7E RaE R9E RIOE RilE --~------,---,-,--.--~----~ r 19 ---t--+ ~;~:--J'---t---f. -iF==::I-::p"",,'::="-"'4:-l N - T F===~~~~f==~F======~~ 18 N

r 17 N

T 15 N

T T 14 14 N N

T 13 N

T T 12 12 N N

T T II II N N

T T 10 10 N N

T 9 SECTIONIZED TOWNSHIP N

T 8 N

T 7 N

Figure 2. --Location map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing drainage and culture. 8 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Table 1. -- Principal sources of data used in preparing this report

Data on unconsolidated deposits Data on bedrock units Area Seismic Recorded Recorded r mapped Well refraction field Previous Well field County (sq, mi.) Previous mapping records records observations Total mapping records observations

Bartholomew 320 Soil map, 1: 63, 360; 56 13 26 95 11 19 Ulrich and others, 1947

Brown 10 Soil map. 1:63,360; 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rogers and others, 1946 ;0­ Decatur 300 Soil 1:63,360; 223 54 63 340 78 27 and others, ~'" 1922 ,; v~ Fayette 20 0 1 0 1 N'll 0 0 "''0 Hancock 270 Soil map. 1:63,360; 71 45 0 116 0} C 16 0 and Simmons, - ~

Henry 250 soil 243 1 0 244 29 0 of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'8 Jackson 1 0 0 0 0 :';;0 0 0

c.>":'; Jennings 70 Soil 1:63,360; 10 3 4 17 7 17 and others, "u~~ 1940 '".. '"~ '" Johnson 200 SoH 1;48,000; 51 229 2 282 ,;;" 2. 16 0 and others, '0 '" " ,~ 1948 ~~ Madison 7 Preliminary geologic 1 0 0 1 0 0 map by William J. ;; Wayne 'ci E <> Q .~ ·So Marion 50 Geologic map, 28 41 0 69 .sS 1 0 1:48,000, Harrison., 0 0 1963 <38

Rush 380 Soil map, 1:53,360; 151 18 14 183 42 7 Simmons, Kunkel, and Ulrich, 1937

Shelby 410 Preliminary geologic 92 30 30 152 44 B map by William J. Wayne

and maps in this report. Published material (1956), and Harrison (1963). Elevations of and unpublished data in the files of the Indiana the bedrock surface were obtained by sub­ GeologicalSurvey and in the libraryofIndiana tracting drift-thickness figures from surface University are the sources of all factual data elevations read from topographic quadrangle presented (table 1). Compilations and inter­ maps. In areas of thick drift, especially in pretations, which are original unless other­ Henry County, a large proportion ofthe water wise specified, are based on these data wells do not enter bedrock and therefore fur­ supplemented by the study of topographic nish incomplete data on drift thickness. quadrangle maps and aerial photographs. The map showing unconsolidated deposits Data on drift thickness used in the compi­ (fig. 4) was compiled mainly from maps in lation of the drift-thickness map (fig. 5) and the Survey files. Much of the basic data came the bedrock-topography map (fig. 6) were from published soil maps (see table 1) that obtained from water well records, oil and had been geologically interpreted for use in gas well records, seismic refraction records, preparing a glacial materials map of Indiana and recorded field observations. In addition (Thornbury and Wayne, in preparation). Pre­ to the nearly 1, 500 records of points within vious bedrock mapping in the region was the basin proper (table 1), several hundred found generally to be accurate only in areas records from adjacent areas were used. of thin drift in Decatur County and adjacent Many of these were used in earlier drift­ parts of Jennings, Bartholomew, Shelby, and thickness studies by McGrain (1949), Wayne Rush Counties. In the remainder of the area, PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE 9

where 1:>.1.,;1'-"""" drift is thicker and direct in­ The southern margin of the Tipton Till formation on the bedrock is not so abundant, Plain across the Upper East Fork basin is bedrock contacts were interpolated on the ba­ probablythe most poorlydefined physiograph­ r sis of indirect evidence. ic boundary in Indiana. The Shelbyville Mo­ raine was selected by Malott as the logical southern boundary of the till plain in western PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE Indiana, but in the eastern part of the State no natural boundary exists. There is instead PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS a broad transitional zone, in which the topog­ raphy is similar to that of the till plain, but General statement.-Most of the Upper East glacial drift is sufficiently thin that the gen­ Fork Drainage Basin is in the physiographic eral form of bedrockphysiographic units may unit designated by Fenneman (1938) as the be recognized. Thus the Scottsburg Lowland Till Plains Section of the Central Lowland and the MuscatatuckRegionalSlope are iden­ Province. A small area in the southwestern tifiable as physiographic units, but their part of the basin is included in Fenneman1 s characteristics are subdued bythe northward­ (1938, p. 425-426; pI. 3) Highland Rim Sec­ increasing thickness of glacial drift. This tion of the Interior Low Plateau Province. transitional zone, according to Malott (1922, In this report, however, the more detailed p. 105), could be placed in either the Tipton divisions outlined by Malott (1922, p. 77-124) Till Plain or the appropriate bedrock phys­ will be used, According to Malottl s termi­ iographic units. nology the Upper East Fork basin lies within MU8catatJuck Regional Slope.- The southeastern four physiographic units (fig. 1): the Tipton part of the Upper East Fork basin is at the Till Plain, the Muscatatuck Regional Slope, northern end of the Muscatatuck Regional and the Scottsburg Lowland, all of which are Slope (Malott, 1922, p. 86-88). a gently slop­ part of the Till Plains Section of Fenneman, ing plain that descends from nearly I, 100 and the Norman Upland, which is part of feet above sea level in east-central Rush Fennemanl s Highland Rim Section. County to about 675 feet in southeastern Bar­ 1ipwn Till Plain.-About half the area of the tholomew County. The MuscatatuckRegional Upper East Fork Drainage Basin occurs with­ Slope is commonlyinterpretedas a structural in Malottl s (1922, p. 104-112) Tipton Till plain or stripped surface on bedrock, but the Plain, a nearly flat to gently rolling glacial northeast-southwest grain of the topography plain that covers almost one-third of the State clearly suggests that glaciation at least partly (fig. 1). The plain is crossed by several end accounts for the generalphysiographic char­ moraines, but most of these are so low and acter of the area. A blanket of glaCial drift, poorly developed that they modify only slightly which thickens northward to a maximum of the overall flatness of the topography. Fur­ about 100 feet, covers the middle Paleozoic thermore, the plain has been but slightly carbonate rocks that underlie the entire unit. modified by postglacial stream erosion; most Many of the valleys of the Muscatatuck modern streams have cut only shallow valleys Regional Slope are steep sided and moder­ or follow inherited glacial drainageways. ately deep, the streams having downcut In the Upper East Fork basin the Tipton through the thin cover of unconsolidated ma­ Till Plain has a total relief of about 450 feet. terials into the underlying limestones and The plain slopes in a general southwesterly dolomites. Upland areas betweenthe streams direction from an elevation of 1, 180 feet are, in general, very broad and nearly flat above sea level at the head of the basin in to undulating. These features indicate that northeastern Henry County to 730 feet above the region is still in the youthful stage of sea level south of Franklin in Johnson Coun­ landform development. ty, where it passes imperceptibly into the Scottsburg Lowland.-The Muscatatuck Re­ Scottsburg Lowland. Except for scattered gional Slope passes westward with little ap­ kames and narrow morainic areas, the up­ parenttopographic breakinto an elongate area land surface of the till plain is almost fea­ of low relief named the Scottsburg Lowland tureless; the plain is not so monotonous as by Malott (1922, p. 88-90). In the Upper elsewhere in Indiana, however, because in East Fork basin the Scottsburg Lowland has the Upper East Fork area it is crossed by a been partially filled with glacial drift that is network of southwestward-draining glacial as much as 150 feet thick; therefore, the low­ sluiceways, the floors of which are, on the land is less distinct thanfarther south, where average, about 50 feet below the upland.

------...... ---~----- ... 10 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA the drift is thinner or absent. As a physio­ GLACIAL MORAINES graphic unit, the lowland is recognizable as far north as southern Johnson County, where Three morainic systems cross the Upper it passes beneath the still thicker drift cover East Fork Drainage Basin. For the most of the Tipton Till Plain. In this area the gen­ part these moraines trend in a general north­ eral elevation of the Scottsburg Lowland is east-southwest direction across the Tipton 730 to 750 feet above sea level, but along its Till Plain and Muscatatuck Regional Slope. western edge the elevation in places ap­ (See Leverett and Taylor, 1915, pl. 6; Malott, proaches 800 feet. The axis of the trough in 1922, pl. 3; and Wayne, 1958b, for detail on this northern area is about 700 feet above the distribution of moraines.) The moraines sea level and gradually drops to 600 feet at were described, first by Leverett (Leverett the southern end of the drainage basin. and Taylor, 1915, p. 77-122) and then by Geomorphically, the Scottsburg Lowland Malott (1922, p. 107-108, 152), as the Shel­ is a strike valley--a linear lowland whose byville, Champaign, and Bloomington Mo­ position is controlled by the structure and rainic Systems. These names, derived from lithology of the underlying bedrock forma­ localities in Illinois, had been used by Lev­ tions. The Scottsburg Lowland follows the erett (1899a, p. 192-290) in describing mo­ belt of outcrop of relatively nonresistant raines in Illinois and western Indiana and shales of late Devonian and early Mississip­ were simplyextended eastward as Leverett's pian age. In cross section the trough is work progressed in this direction. strongly asymmetric, the more gentle eastern The outermost or Shelbyville Moraine slope truncating the gently westward-dipping marks the general southern limit of the con­ shale beds at a low angle. (See Malott, 1922, tinental ice sheet that invaded Indiana during fig. 17, p. 160.) the Wisconsin Age. East of the East Fork of Norman Upland.-The Norman Upland (Malott, White River the Wisconsin glacial boundary 1922, p. 90-94) is a dissected low plateau trends generally northeast-southwest as it underlain by relatively resistant siltstones crosses the Muscatatuck Regional Slope be­ and interbedded softer shales of the Borden tween northwestern Jennings County and Group of Mississippian age. These rocks dip northeastern Decatur County. The boundary about 35 feet per mile to the west-southwest. is marked by the distal (outer) edge of the The upland is an area of strong local relief Shelbyville Moraine, which in this area is a characterized generally by flat-topped nar­ belt of hummocky topography that rises only row divides, steep slopes, and deep V-shaped about 20 feet above the adjacent plain of silt­ valleys. Most shorter tributary streams have veneered older drift to the southeast. The only incipient flood plains or none at all, but boundary is readily discernible, however, the larger streams are marked by conspicuous because of the marked difference in materials narrow flood plains. The area is extremely and soils on opposite sides of the line. Lev­ well drained and virtuallyall of it is in slope. erett remarked that It for more than 40 miles These features clearlyindicate that the Nor­ in Fayette, Decatur, and Jennings counties man Upland is in the mature stage of land­ the border is so sharp and distinct that it can form development. be located within a few yards" (Leverett and The eastern boundary of this plateau is Taylor, 1915, p. 78). West of the East Fork drawn at the base of the eastward-facing of White River, however, the Wisconsin gla­ Knobstone Escarpment, one of the most prom­ cial boundary is less distinct, in terms of inent topographic features in Indiana. In both topography and soils. western Bartholomew County the escarpment The Champaign and Bloomington Moraines rises 250 to 350 feet above the Scottsburg roughly parallel the Shelbyville. East of the Lowland to the east, and the boundary between drainage axis occupied by the East Fork, the this lowland and the Norman Upland is sharp Driftwood River, and lower Sugar Creek, the and well defined. The escarpment is even Champaign Moraine is about 15 to 20 miles higher and more prominent south of the Up­ inside (northwest of) the Wisconsin boundary per East Fork basin, with relief of 400 to and the Bloomington Moraine is about 35 to 600 feet near the Ohio River, but farther 40 miles, but in the western part of the basin north in southern Johnson County the ridge the belts are closer to this boundary. In gen­ gradually disappears beneath glacial drift of eral, these moraines are not very well devel­ the Tipton Till Plain. oped in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin; PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE 11

of the two, the Bloomington is the stronger. >-----­ In some places the moraines have little or no Miles 1 : ...-'...... ,1 i topographic expression and are represented HENRY /' '-1.­ r only by boulder belts. In places, however, they are defined by knobs or ridges of till _)_: _/:::::...--=~'/_~rf~ ~jl' f" ,r-~ I C fi and by prominent kames that rise above the I ',-, ~'/~r' general level of adjacent areas. The belt of MARION I / ~ / c gravel hills or kames that trends in a general ,r1-/ HANC I 0 " I } -_ - T~ east-west direction across northern Johnson I 0 I ..J ~ I / County, for example, was considered by Lev­ ( ,J IiJ erett and Malott to be part of the Bloomington I Morainic System. I) 5>­ H l ~ )1 DRAINAGE r)'-­ The most striking aspect of the physiog­ / ' t I f.O t I raptly of the Upper East Forkarea is the sub­ parallel pattern of southwestward-draining streams that dominates the drainage system of the basin. To express this pattern semi­ quantitatively, a rudimentary statistical anal- of the drainage system was made by measuring the air-line direction of alternate 5-mile segments of all principal streams. --'s~t-- ____, / / I RIPLEY The mean direction of these segments for the - I JENN NGS I entire basin is S. 27° W., and two-thirds of the segments are oriented within 28° of this Figure 3. --Map of the Upper East Fork mean, that is, within the sector from S. 1° Drainage Basin showing regional slope E. to S. 55° W. (fig. 3). The strong paral­ of the basin (contours), mean direction lelism of streamflow directions thus indicated of streamflow (arrow), and standard is a consequence of. the geologic history of deviation of streamflow (sector). Ele­ the basin. vations in feet above sea level. The drainage basin ofthe upper East Fork can be subdivided into two units, a slope that and western Hancock County (fig. 3). The makes up the eastern two-thirds of the basin western branch continues northwestward from and a trough that occupies the western third. Columbus through Edinburg and Franklin as The slope exhibits a relatively uniform re­ the drainage axis of the trough and leaves the gional gradient of about 8 feet per mile, de­ basin southwest of Greenwood in northern scending from about 1,175 feet above sea Johnson County (fig. 3). From Columbus up­ level on the northeast to perhaps 875 feet on stream to Franklin this branch is occupied the southwest (fig. 3). The trough, by con­ by the Driftwood River, lower Sugar Creek, trast, is a strongly asymmetric southward­ and Youngs Creek; it no doubt represents the pitching basin, whose more gently sloping northern expression of the Scottsburg Low­ eastern limb is merely a continuation of the land. slope area. Streams entering the drainage axis from The axis of the trough is best defined from the northeast exhibit the strong subparallel the mouth of the drainage basin upstream drainage pattern described above. The mas­ (northwestward) to Columbus. In this seg­ ter stream of much of the area east of the ment it is followed by the East Fork of White drainage axis is the Blue River, which River, the position of the axis being controlled follows a well-defined trench in its southwest- by the belt of weak shales that underlies the course from the head of the East Fork Scottsburg Lowland. Inthe vicinity of Colum­ basin in northeastern Henry County to the bus, however, the trough appears to split. head of the Driftwood River in southeastern The axis of its easternbranch trends slightly Johnson County. North of the Big Blue River east of north as it passes through northern in the northwestern part of the drainage ba­ Bartholomew County, western ShelbyCounty, sin the northeast-southwest pattern is less R3E R9E RIOE RilE T 19 N

- T 18 N

T 17 N

T 16 N

T T 15 N

T 14 N

T 13 N

T 12 N

T T II II N N

T T 10 10 N N

T 9 N

Miles

Base modified from 1° X 2° Army Map Service mops

Figure 4. --Map showing unconsolidated deposits of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin. UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS 13

apparent than it is south of the river. Many of the streams, or segments thereof, flow in a more southerly direction, following the re­ gional slope (fig. 3). Divergence from the EXPLANATION general northeast-southwest pattern is not particularly sharp, however, and even in this part of the basin some streams have south­ D westward-flowing segments. Martinsville Formation The area west of the East Fork and Drift­ Modern alluvial deposits of stream channels wood River segment of the drainage axis is and lIoodplains; mostly sand and sift drained by several short eastward-flowing streams that follow the steep regional slope D of this part of the basin. Most of these Prospect Formation streams head at or near the western rim of Older alluvial deposl~s of low terraces, the basin in the area underlain by rocks of the mostly silt and clay Borden Group, thence flow down the front of the Knobstone Escarpment and across anarea covered by relatively thin older drift. A no­ ticeable difference in stream development Atherton Formation, dune facies betweenareas underlain by older drift (Jessup Eolian deposl7s of dunes; mostly sand • Formation of Illinoian age) and younger drift (Trafalgar Formation of Wisconsin age) is apparent in figure 4. Atherton Formation, outwash facies The origin of the northeast-southwest Glaciofluvial depasits of val/ey trains and stream lineation is not entirely clear, but it oufW(Jsh plains; mosly sand and grovel is certain that the essentials of the pattern were established during the Pleistocene Epoch, most probably during the Wisconsin Age. Many of the streams (for example, Big Trafalgar Formotion, kame facies Ice-contact deposits of komes and eskers,. Blue River, Flatrock River, Clifty Creek, mostly • graYel and sand Sugar Creek, Buck Creek, Hurricane Creek, and Brandywine Creek) follow inherited val­ leys formerly occupied by glacial drainage during the Wisconsin, as both Leverett (Lev­ Trafalgar Formation erett and Taylor, 1915, p. 119) and Malott Youf/ger glacier deposits of 1111 plains and (1922, p. 109, 166, 171)recognized. Whether ef/d moraines; mostly till, but if/cludes thin layers of stratified drift the drainageways represent subglacial (be­ neath the ice) or proglacial (beyond the ice margin) channels is not known, but there is no question as to their glacial origin. Jessup Formation It is not uncommon for drainage divides Older glacier deposits of tillplains; to cross abandoned parts of these glacial mostly till, but includes some thin channels. The divide between the drainage layers 01 stratified drift basins of the East Fork and the White River north of New Castle in northeastern Henry D County crosses a conspicuous dry drainage­ Bedrock way half a mile to three-fourths mile wide Shales af/d siltstones of Mississippian age and 60 to 100 feet deep that farther south is occupied by the Big Blue River. Other aban­ ~'----"- doned glacial drainageways, or segments Geologic boundory thereof, are abundant in the Upper East Fork Dashed where approximately located area. Among the many good examples that can be easily observed on the map (fig. 4) are those in north-central Hancock County between Sugar Creek and Brandywine Creek; in south-central Hancock County between Brandywine Creek and Big Blue River; in 14 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN. INDIANA

eastern Henry County from the northeastern vated without blasting. Soil scientists, on the tip of the drainage basinwest-southwestward other hand, generally define soil as a natural to Big Blue River and also south-southwest­ dynamic body at the surface of the earth, ward into northeastern Rush County; in north­ composed of mineral and matter and central Shelby County, where a cutoff of consisting of more or less well-defined hori­ Blue River is used partly by the lower part of zons. In this report the word soil is used in Brandywine Creek; in south-central Shelby this latter sense: only the weathered upper County, south of Shelbyville, between Big part of an unconsolidated deposit is called Blue River and FlatrockRiver; and in south­ soil. Soil is considered to be distinct from western Rush County, a cutoff of Flatrock the underlying geologic parent material from River southwest of Rushville. which it is derived, even though the boundary between the two is commonly transitional. Some soils data that relate directly to parent UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS materials are included in this report, but for details on the many soils that are recognized GENERAL STATEMENT in the Upper East Fork area the reader is referred to county Soil Survey reports (Bald­ Most of the Upper East Fork Drainage Ba­ win and others, 1922; Geib and Schroeder, sin is covered with unconsolidated sedimen­ 1912; Kunkel and others, 1940; Rogers and tary materials that were deposited by water, others, 1946; Simmons, Kunkel, and Ulrich, wind, or ice; only in a narrow belt about 14 1937; Tharp and Simmons, 1930; Ulrich and miles long in northeastern Brown County and others, 1947; Ulrich and others, 1948). western Bartholomew County are such uncon­ The unconsolidated deposits of the Upper solidated deposits absent (fig. 4). Exceptfor East Fork Drainage Basin are designated in alluvial and some colluvial sediments that this report, both in the text and in figure 4, are mostly of Recent age, these unlithified by geographically derived formation names. materials were laid down during the glacial These names follow the classification of ages of the Pleistocene Epoch and are there­ Pleistocene stratigraphic and map units pro­ fore classified as (glacial) drift. posed by Wayne (1963) for use throughout the Two general types of unconsolidated de­ State. posits are present in the Upper East Fork area, those that are sorted and stratified and those that are virtually unsorted and non­ THICKNESS OF DRIFT stratified. Sorted and stratified sediments include alluvial clay, silt, and gravel The thickness ofunconsolidated sediments deposits of normal streams, sand and gravel in the Upper East Fork area ranges from less deposits of glacial meltwaters, and eolian than a foot to more than 300 feet (fig. 5). Al­ (wind-deposited) silts and sands. The un­ though some buried bedrock valleys may be sorted material, called till, was deposited partly filled withunconsolidated materials of by glacier ice; in areal extent it is much pre-Pleistocene age, the great bulk of these more widespread than any of the other uncon­ valley-fill sediments are of glacial origin. solidated deposits in the area. Because ice, The drift is thinnest in the southern part of unlike water and wind, has virtually no abil­ the area and thickens in a general northerly ity to sort materials according to size, till direction. In Decatur County, for example, consists of a heterogeneous admixture of rock the average thickness is probably less than fragments; it is perhaps best described as a 50 feet; the bedrock surface in many places conglomeratic mudstone composed of a finer is no more than 25 or 30 feet helow the up­ grained matrix that contains granules, sand, land, and numerous exposures of bedrock silt, and clay, and a coarser grained fraction occur along the stream valleys. Farther that consists of pebbles, cobbles, and boul­ north, however, in eastern Hancock County ders of various shapes. The material, though and HenryCounty the sediments prob­ generally uncemented, is in most places firm ably average about 200 feet in thickness and compact as a result of deposition beneath (Appendix, well records 17 and 18), and bed­ several hundred feet of ice. rock exposures are virtually unknown; at sev­ refer to such unconsolidated eral localities that lie along the course of a deposits as soil, in accordwith the usage that deep buried valley drift thicknesses are known defines soil as all loose or poorly consolidated to exceed 300 feet (Appendix, well record 19), material above solid rock that can be exca­ and one deep well just north of New Castle

----...... --...~ ------­ R3E T T 19 19 N N

- T 18 N:

T 17 17 N N

T 16 N

T 15 N

T 14 N N

T 13 N

T 12 N

T T \I II N N

T T 10 10 N N

T 9 N

T

I \ J "'~-" Johnson County modified from Wayne (unpublished)

Figure 5. -Isopach map showing thickness of unconsolidated deposits in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin. Contour interval 50 feet. 16 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

entered bedrock at a depth of 400 feet. records 3 and 10). Contacts with all bedrock formations and with till of the Trafalgar and r Jessup Formations are sharp. Contacts with MARTINSVILLE FORMATION the kame facies of the Trafalgar Formation and with the dune facies and outwash facies The Martinsville Formation (Wayne, 1963) of the Atherton Formation are less distinct. is the youngest unconsolidated unit of forma­ In many places the lithology of the Martins­ tion rank recognized in Indiana. It is repre­ ville is so similar to that of Athertonoutwash sented in the Upper East Fork area by allu­ that the contact is gradational or obscure vial (and some colluvial) deposits along the (Appendix, well record 3). For this reason, channels and on the flood plains of modern and because there may be little or no topo­ streams. These sediments are geologically graphic break between flood plainand outwash youthful, having been deposited during the plain, the boundary between these two units Wisconsin and Recent Ages after the final is arbitrarily drawn. retreat of glacier ice from the drainage basin. On older soil maps of the Upper East Fork The sediments are therefore classed as non­ area (Baldwin and others, 1922; Tharp and glacial, although they are derived mainly Simmons, 1930; Simmons, Kunkel, and Ul­ from older deposits of water-laid and ice­ rich, 1937) only two alluvial soils are shown, laid drift. Because of their occurrence along the Genesee series and the Eel series. But stream courses, sediments of the Martins­ on more recent maps (Kunkel and others, ville Formation are partlytransient in nature, 1940; Ulrich and others, 1947; Ulrich and much of the materialbeing subject tofrequent others, 1948) several alluvial soils are rec­ scouring and redeposition farther down­ ognized. These are commonly divided into stream. two groups: (l) soils formed on neutral to In general, the Martinsville Formation is slightly alkaline alluvium derived from drift composed of bedded silt, sand, and gravel. of Wisconsin age and (2) soils formed on A t some localities it consists almost entirely strongly acid alluvium derived from drift of of sand and gravel, whereas in other places Illinoian age and from clastic rocks of the it is largely silt and clay. The upper part of Borden Group. Soil series in the first cate­ the unit (about 1 to 3 feet thick) tends to be gory include the Genesee and the Ross (well finer grained than the material below, par­ drained), the Eel (moderately well drained to ticularly in flood-plain environments. Here imperfectly drained), and the Shoals (imper­ also the finer materials (fine sand, silt, and fectly drained). Those in the second group clay) commonly are high in organic matter constitute the Pope catena and include the and consequently are dark brown to black. Pope (well drained), Philo (moderately well Channel deposits, on the other hand, tend to drained), Stendal (imperfectly drained), and be coarser textured and yellowish brown or A tkins (poorly drained) series. Alluvial soil brownish yellow. profiles are shallow and poorly developed, The Martinsville Formation is present partly because of the general youthfulness of throughout the Upper East Fork Drainage Ba­ the Martinsville Formation, but especially sin (fig. 4). Although the deposits are thick­ because of the ephemeral character of the est (maximum thickness about 15 or 20 feet) deposits. and the alluvial belts widest along the larger streams (East Fork of White River, Drift­ wood River, Flatrock River, Blue River, ATHER'ION FOR~A'IION and Sugar Creek) in the southwestern part of the basin, some alluvium is present along The Atherton Formation of Wayne (1963) virtually every stream. The deposits are includes four interrelated facies, only two of continuous except in the southeastern part of which, the outwash facies and the dune facies, the basin where drift is thin and several of are well enough expressed areally in the Up­ the streams, notably Sand Creek and Clifty per East Fork area to be shown in figure 4 Creek, are partly entrenched in bedrock. In Of these, the outwash facies is the more ex­ these valley segments either the Martinsville tensive; it occurs throughout the drainage ba­ Formation is thin (2 to 5 feet thick) or, more sin, mainlyalong stream courses inassocia­ commonly, its alluvial belt is too narrow to tionwith the younger Martinsville Formation. be mapped. The dune facies is mapped only in Bartholo­ Because the Martinsville is the youngest mew County, but small dunal areas are pres­ formation of the area, it overlies all bedrock ent elsewhere within the basin. and other unconsolidated units (Appendix, well UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS 17

The other two units of the Atherton For­ facies of the Atherton Formation and the mation, the lacustrine facies and the loess Martinsville Formation, the boundary be­ facies, are not shown in figure 4. Sediments tween the two units in many places is not well r of the lacustrine facies are thinand restricted defined. The most prominent terraces are in area and so are included with the Martins­ those along the course of the Big Blue River ville Formation. Deposits of the loess facies betweenShelbyville and New Castle, especial­ are present as a thin blanket atop glacially ly upstream from the confluence of the Big deposited sediments of the Trafalgar and Blue with Sixmile Creek west of Carthage. Jessup Formations and are commonly rec­ In this part of the drainageway the valley is ognizable as a unit within the soil profile. narrower and better defined than farther Nevertheless, the facies is not sufficiently downstream; the terrace treads are higher thick nor are its boundaries everywhere clear and much more sharply separated from the enough for the facies to be mapped as a dis­ flood plain than farther downstream. The tinct geologic unit, and it is therefore in­ Atherton-Martinsville boundary can there­ cluded in the Trafalgar and Jessup Forma­ fore be mapped more accurately. Other ter­ tions. race remnants occur along Buck Creek in Outwash facies.-The outwash facies of the southeastern Marion County, along Sixmile Atherton Formationis composed of outwash­ Creek in eastern Hancock County and north­ plain and valley-train sediments. Most of western Rush County, and along Clifty Creek these materials were deposited by meltwater in east-central Bartholomew County. streams that drained the Upper East Fork Many of the drainageways, on the other area during the Wisconsin Age of the Pleis­ hand, became partly or largely abandoned as tocene Epoch, although in the southern part active drainage lines with the abatement of of the drainage basin some of the sediments glacial meltwater, and so today are virtually are partly Illinoian in age. dry or occupied only by underfit streams or Valley-train sediments appear to be much manmade drainage ditches. Stream en­ more extensive than outwash-plain deposits, trenchment in these drainageways is negligi­ but they cannot everywhere be distinguished. ble, and the floors serve when necessary as Outwash plains and valley trains commonly flood plains for the modern streams or as grade into each other, as is apparently the overflow channels during flood periods. Con­ case in north-central Bartholomew County sequently the channels are marked by a thin (fig. 4). Other examples of outwash plains accumulation of fine-grained alluvial or la­ in the Upper East Fork area occur in north­ custrine sediments of the Martinsville For­ eastern Rush County and in eastern Johnson mation on top of the outwash sediments of the County and western Shelby County (fig. 4). Atherton Formation (Appendix, well record Valley-train sediments extend along the 10, unit 1). several glacial drainageways that character­ In addition to its surficial distribution in ize the Upper East Fork area (Appendix, well outwash plains and valley trains, the outwash record 3, unit 2; well record 10, units 1, 2, facies of the Atherton Formation is animpor­ and 3; well record 15, unit 2; well record 17, tant unit in the subsurface materials of the unit 2; and well record 18, unit 2). Some of Upper East Fork Drainage Basin. Outwash these drainageways are used by modern deposits ranging in thickness from a few feet streams that have cut down below the levels to several tens of feet have been recognized of their Pleistocene predecessors. The in well samples from virtually all parts of the floors of the glacial channels are conilequently basin; the sediments commonly occur as units preserved as terraces perched at various of sand and gravel either between the Tra­ heights above the modern flood plains. The falgar and Jessup Formations or between the widest terraces are in the southwestern part tills within these formations (Appendix, well of the basin along the larger streams, such record 3, unit 4; well record 4, unit 2; well as the East Fork, Flatrock River, Driftwood record 7, unit 5; well record 8, units 2, 4, River, Sugar Creek, and Big Blue River. In and 7; well record 13, units 5, 8, and 10; general the terraces in this area are low, well record 14, units 3 and 5; well record commonly being no more than 10 or 15 feet 15, unit 6; well record 16, units 3, 5, and 8; above the adjacent flood plains, and there is well record 18, units 4, 5, 7, and 9; and well little topographic break between terrace and record 19, unit 2). flood plain. For this reason, and because Well records suggest that the surficial there is some similarity between the outwash outwash deposits of the Atherton Formation 18 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN. INDIANA

Table 2. --Size analyses of samples of the outwash facies of the Atherton Formation - [Data from McGregor, 1960, fig. 13 and table 4J

E.) 50/50

Southeastern Hancock County (NEi NW! sec. 9, T. 15 N.• R. 7 E.) 61/39

66/34

Northeastern Jackson (swl SWl sec, 13, T. 6 N. > 5 E.) 34/16

range in thickness from 5 to 40 feet; along particular locality. It is not uncommon for most of the drainageways the valley-train a bed of sandy silt, for example, to rest di­ sediments are between 10 and 25 feet thick. rectly on a layer of mixed sand and gravel The composite thickness of all outwash de­ containing large pebbles. A smaller range posits between the surficial unit and the bed­ in grain size can be expected downstream rock surface depends in part, of course, on than near a former margin of the ice sheet, total drift thickness; in areas of thick drift however, and because these deposits wcre the composite thickness is commonly meas­ laid down largelyas outwash from a retreat­ ured in tens of feet and may approach or even ing ice front, the surficial deposits tend to be exceed 100 feet in some places (Appendix, finer grained than those at some depth below well record 18). the surface. The grain size of the deposits comprising Except near the surface where they are the outwash facies of the AthertonFormation leached, outwash sediments of the Atherton spans a considerable range. The unit con­ Formation are calcareous. In general, the sists mostly of sand and gravel, but in places coarser the material, the higher the carbon­ it is dominantly silt and sand with smaller ate content; deposits that are mostly gravel amounts of gravel and clay. and sand have calcium carbonate equivalents As a general principle, glacial-outwash of 20 to 50 percent, whereas the carbonate deposits within a given drainageway become equivalent of outwash deposits composed progressively finer grained downstream. mainly of sand and silt is only 10 to 20 per­ This principle is well illustrated in the Up­ cent (Indiana Soil Survey, 1956). Depth of per East Fork area. In the headwater areas leaching of gravel and sand ranges from 2 to of the streams that unite to form the East 5 feet; the top of the calcareous zone most Fork the sandI gravel ratio is about 60/40, commonly occurs between 36 and 40 inches. but along the main stream below the tributary In finer grained outwash (sand and silt) the junctures the ratio is about 85 115 (Patton, upper limit of calcareous material is about 1953a). Table 2 gives the results of analytical a foot deeper, ranging between a depth of 3 work by McGregor (1960) on four samples of and 6 feet and commonly being about 50 outwashcollected between south-central Hen­ inches. (See Tharp and Simmons, 1930; Sim­ ry County, near the head of the Upper East mons, Kunkel, and Ulrich, 1937; Ulrich and ForkDrainage Basin, and northeastern Jack­ others, 1947; Ulrich and others, 1948.) son County, about 10 miles downstream from Analyses of the gravel fractions

particularly of chert are considerably higher be as much as 40 feet thick. On the upland in the two southern samples than inthose col­ surface north of Azalia the sand probably r lected at the more northern sites: whereas overlies till of the Trafalgar Formation, and the samples from Henry and Hancock Counties the contact betweenthe two materials is prob­ each contain less than 1 percent chert (by ably sharp. In places where the dune sand weight), the Jackson County sample contains overlies sand and gravel of the outwashfacies 19 percent chert (McGregor, 1960, table 5). of the Atherton Formation, the basal contact A variety of igneous and metamorphic rock of the sand is likely to be gradational because types is also present in the gravel fracti on of most of the sand was derived by eolian re­ the outwash facies; this includes, at different working of the outwash. localities, significant amounts of vein quartz, granite, diorite, and rhyolite in the igneous class and gneiss, quartzite, and schist in the PROSPECT FORMATION metamorphic group. The outwash facies of the Atherton Forma­ The name Prospect Formation was pro­ tion is the parent material for two groups of posed by Wayne (1963) for a unit composed of soil series in the Upper East Fork area: (1) alluvial silts, sands, and gravels that occupy soils developed from strongly calcareous terrace positions along valleys in southern gravel and sand and (2) soils developed from Indiana. The sediments are lithologically less strongly calcareous, more deeply similar to those of the Martinsville Forma­ leached sand and silt with small amounts of tion but are older, as indicated by their top­ gravel and clay. The first group includes the ographic position and especially by the fact Fox and Nineveh series (both well drained to that they are more deeply weathered. excessively drained), the Homer series (im­ Deposits of silt and clay that underlie low perfectly drained), the Westland series (poor­ terraces along certaintributaries of the Drift­ ly drained), and the Abington series (very wood River in western Bartholomew County poorly drained). Three series, the Martins­ are provisionally assigned to the Prospect ville (well drained), the Whitaker (imperfect­ Formation (fig. 4). These deposits were in­ ly drained), and the Mahalasville (poorly terpreted Ulrich and others (1947) as older drained), constitute the second catena. (See alluvial sediments derived from Illinoian till Baldwin and others, 1922; Tharp and Sim­ and weathered bedrock. The material is mons, 1930; Simmons, Kunkel, and Ulrich, strongly acid to a depth of 5 or 6 feet, the 1937; Ulrich and others, 1947; Ulrich and depth of leaching is 8 to 10 feet or greater, others, 1948; Indiana Soil Survey, 1956.) the calcium carbonate equivalent is less than Dune facie8.~Deposits of windblown sand in 10 percent, and the derived soil is moderately Indiana were assigned by Wayne (1963) tothe to strongly developed (Ulrich and others, dune facies of the Atherton Formation. Sev­ 1947; Indiana Soil Survey, 1956). In all these eral small areas of eolian sand have been respects the material is typical of the Pros­ mapped in the Upper East Fork basin, chiefly pect Formation as defined by Wayne. in Bartholomew County, where they occur Assignment of the Bartholomew County mainly along the east side of the valleyoc­ deposits to the Prospect is proviSional, how­ cupied by the East Fork and its tributaries ever, partly because the formation has not (fig. 4). previously been identified in this area. Its The dune facies of the Atherton Forma­ known area of distribution is farther south, tion in this area consists of well-sorted fine­ chiefly in the unglaciated part of Indiana, grained yellowish-brown sand. The sand is where the unit underlies terrace remnants leached of its calcium carbonate content to that are 20 to 50 feet above the modern flood an average depth of about feet; below this plains (Gray, Jenkins, and Weidman, 1960, depth it is calcareous and slightly lighter p. 20-21; Wayne, 1963, p. 38). The Barthol­ (yellowish gray) in color. Most of the soils omew County deposits, in contrast, occur in developed on the sand belong to the Princeton terraces that are only 1 to 6 feet above the series, but some are classified as Ayrshire flood plains (Ulrich and others, 1947). and some as Lyles (Ulrich and others, 1947). The maximum thickness of the Prospect The exact thickness of windblown sand in Formation in Bartholomew County is esti­ Bartholomew County is unknown. The aver­ mated to be about 15 or 20 feet. Although age thickness is estimated to be between 15 the unit is known from localities where it is and 20 feet, but in some places the sand may topographically higher than the Martinsville

------~ .... ---- .-.~-....~.... ~-....--~.------20 GEOLOGY OF THE UFPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN. INDIANA

Formation, it is older thanthat formation and mental work of Harrison (1959), which in­ therefore may underlie the Martinsville in dicates that there are no significant textural - valleys in western Bartholomew County. In and mineralogical differences among various this area it is younger than the Jessup For­ sampled till units in Marion County (including mation and all bedrock formations, but its samples of the Center Grove and Carters­ exact age relationships to the Atherton and burg tills collected from the Upper East Fork Trafalgar Formations are not entirely clear. area). The Center Grove can be identified in Very probablyit is older thanthe dune facies places by its greater quantity of includedwood of the Atherton, and it may be either older fragments, but this criterion is not very sat­ than or about the same age as both the Tra­ isfactory. falgar Formation and the outwash facies of Most of the surficial Trafalgar Formation the Atherton. in the Upper East Fork basin belongs to the Soil series developed on the low-terrace Cartersburg member. The Center Grove alluvium of Bartholomew County are the Elk­ member is the surface deposit in a belt about insville (well drained), the Pekin (moderately 12 miles wide that trends obliquely across the well drained), the Bartle (imperfectly southeastern part of the basin southeast of a drained), and the Peoga (poorly drained) (Ul­ line betweenRushville and Columbus (fig. 4). rich and others, 1947; Indiana Soil Survey, It is also the surficial unit in a small area in 1956). southern Johnson County and the northwest corner of Bartholomew County (Wayne, 1963, fig. 6). TRAFALGAR FORMA TION The thickness of the Trafalgar Formation in the Upper East Fork basin ranges from 0 More than half the area of the Upper East feet at the southern limit of the formation to Fork Drainage Basin is underlain by glacial about 150 feet in the northern part of the ba­ sediments assigned to the Trafalgar Forma­ sin {Appendix, well records 17 and 19}. At tion of Wayne (1963). The Trafalgar Forma­ its type localitythe formation is 25 feet thick tion, which is Wisconsin in age, is the most (Appendix, section 3), but interpretations of widespread of the several unconsolidated units driller's logs indicate that throughout most of now recognized in Indiana. It occurs in an the basin where both the Center Grove and east-west belt from 50 to 120 miles broad Cartersburg Till Members are present the that extends across the state from Ohio to formation is somewhat thicker. Typically, Illinois. In the Upper East Fork basin the it is between 30 and 50 or 60 feet thick; the southern margin of the belt forms a V, the Cartersburg is generally the thicker of the sides of which are approximately parallel to two members. South of the Cartersburg the southeasternand southwestern boundaries boundary the average thickness of the Center of the basin; the tip of the V is near the con­ Grove member is about 20 feet. fluence of Sand Creekwith the East Fork (fig. Unoxidized till of the Trafalgar Formation 4). The formation is named from the village is generally dark gray. Oxidation of finely of Trafalgar, just west of the western margin divided iron disseminated throughout the till of the Upper East Fork basin; its type section alters the color to various shades of grayish is in the NWt sec. 8, T. 11 N., R. 4 E., brown and yellowish brown. Except where it Johnson County, at the western edge of the is leached, the till is strongly calcareous; it basin (Appendix, section 3). is described by soil scientists as a moderate­ The Trafalgar Formation was divided by high or high lime till, which signifies a cal­ Wayne (1963) into two principal units, the cium carbonate equivalent of 20 to 50 percent Cartersburg Till Member above and the Cen­ (Indiana Soil Survey, 1956). Zones of sec­ ter Grove Till Member below. A silt bed at ondary calcium carbonate within a few feet of the top of the Center Grove member (Appen­ the surface are not uncommon, but in gen­ dix, section 3, unit 4; section 5, unit 7; and eral these zones are not cemented. In most section 6) defines the boundary between the places the till is firm and compact. units, but where this intertill silt is absent Till of the Trafalgar Formation is most the Cartersburg and Center Grove tills can­ commonly described by soil scientists as a not be positively identified, according to loam to coarse clay loam till containing less Wayne (1963, p. 48, 49), because the tills than 28 percent clay (Indiana Soil Survey, are not sufficiently distinct lithologically. 1956; Odell and others, 1960). A loam is a This observation is confirmed by the experi­ relatively even mixture of sand, silt, and UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS 21

that bydefinition (Soil Survey staff, 1951) minerals show the reverse relationship; dol­ contains less than 52 percent sand (2.0 to .05 omite is more abundant than calcite in vir­ mm), 28 to 50 percent silt (.05 to .002 mm), tually all sizes (Harrison, 1959, table 1). r and 7 to 27 percent clay (finer than. 002 mm). The most abundant minerals in unweath­ Mechanical analyses of nine of Tra­ ered Trafalgar till are illite and chlorite falgar till from the Upper East Fork area, (Harrison, 1959; Bhattacharya, 1962; Droste, seven of which came from RushCounty (Sim­ Bhattacharya, and Sunderman, 1962). Kao­ mons, Kunkel, and Ulrich, 1937, p. 23) and linite and montmorillonite seem to be virtually two from Hancock County {Tharp and Sim­ absent in unaltered till (Harrison, 1959; mons, 1930, p. 10, 16}, indicate that the till Bhattacharya, 1962), but they may be rather averages 41. 0 percent sand (2. 0 to .05 mm), common species, along with degraded illite, 37 percent silt (.05 to .005 mm), and 22 per­ degraded chlorite, and mixed-layer claymin­ cent clay (below. 005 mm). Harrison's (1959, erals, in oxidized and leached horizons of the tables 1-3) analyses of nine samples of Tra­ weathering profile (Hensel and White, 1960; till from Marion County, 1 two of which Bhattacharya, 1962; Droste, Bhattacharya, came from the Upper East Fork area (Appen­ and Sunderman, 1962). Size fractions of 2.0 dix, section 6, units 1 and 7), indicate that to O. 2M from samples collected at depths of 30 the matrix of the till averages 4 percent gran­ to 36 inches at 15 localities in the Upper East ules (4 to 2 mm), 41 percent sand (2 to 1/16 Forkbasin averaged 48 percent illite, 26 per­ mm), 35 percent silt (1/16 to 1/256 mm), cent montmorillonite, 15 percent 14 A min­ and 20 percent clay (below 1/256 mm}. Small eral, and 12 percent kaolinite (Hensel and pebbles (4 to 32 mm) make up about 7 percent White, 1960, table 2). of the total material below 32 millimeters in In addition to till the Formation diameter. The grain-size distributions of includes layers of gravel, sand, and silt that the two samples from the Upper East Fork occur both as lenses (discontinuous layers) area were very similar to the average. within the till and as relatively continuous Microscopic analyses of the small pebble beds that separate the formation into two or

I fractions of the MarionCounty samples show more units (Appendix, sections 3, 5, and 6). a preponderance of carbonate rocks, lime­ Suchlayers of sorted material range in thick­ stone pebbles about 55 percent and ness from an inch to about 10 feet, but com­ dolomite pebbles about 16 percent (by weight) monly they are between 1 and 5 feet thick. of the pebble assemblage (Harrison, 1959, The sand and gravel layers were deposited table 3). Other sedimentary rocks present within the ice or near the ice margin by are shale (4 percent), sandstone (4 percent), streams that derived both their discharge and chert (3 percent), and siltstone (1 percent). load from melting ice. Some of the silt layers Acid igneous rocks (for example, granite, were also deposited by meltwater streams, syenite, and monzonite) and various meta­ but others are interpreted as deposits ofwind­ morphic rocks (including quartzites) average blown silt called loess. about 7 percent each; basic igneous rocks and One of these eolian silts was used by Wayne miscellaneous rock types account for the re­ to divide the Formation into the maining 3 percent of the assemblage (Har­ Cartersburg and Center Grove members. rison, 1959, table 3). The silt occurs at the top of the Center Grove X-ray analyses of the silt and clay frac­ member (Appendix, sections 3, 5, and 6) and tions from the Marion County samples indicate was described by Wayne (1963, p. 49-50) as the presence of quartz, calcite, dolomite, a thin gray to brown fossiliferous silt, com­ illite, chlorite, mixed-layer clay minerals, monly 4 to 12 inches thick. Except where it and feldspar. Quartz and the carbonate min­ is leached, the silt is calcareous. Snail erals are much more abundant in the coarser shells and wood fragments are pres­ fractions than in the finer, whereas the ent, especially in the upper of the unit. A sample of the silt collected in southeastern Marion County (Appendix, section 6, units 3 1 Of the 11 samples analyzed byHarrison, and 4) was found to contain about 4 percent 9 are considered by Wayne (oral communi­ sand, 93 percent silt, and 3 percent clay cation) to have come from the Trafalgar For­ (Harrison, 1963, table 2). The lithologic mation. Two samples (11 and 13) were col­ characteristics of the unit, especially grain lected from the older Jessup Formation, size, strongly suggest that the silt is of eolian according to Wayne. origin.

----- ~~.--.--- 22 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN. INDIANA

In that part of the Upper East Fork basin deposit" occurs. In some kames layers of till where the Center Grove member of the Tra­ are interbeddedwith the sand and gravel, but, falgar Formation is at the surface, the silt on the other hand, the stratified materials r cap on the Center Grove till is 18 to 40 inches may extend to some depth below the base of thick (Odell and others, 1960). Soils are non­ the hill. Thus the thickness of the kame calcareous to a depth ranging from 42 to 70 facies varies conSiderably from place to inches (Indiana SoilSurvey, 1956); they belong place; in general, the kame and esker deposits largely to the Russell catena and include the of the Upper .East Fork basin probably aver­ Russell series (well drained), the Fincastle age about 20 feet thick (Appendix, well record series (imperfectly drained), and the Brook­ 9, unit 1). ston series (poorly drained). Farther north The lithologic character of kame and esker the till and loess of the Center Grove member deposits also varies considerably, not only are buried by the Cartersburg till, which is from place to place but even within a single the surface unit in a large part of the basin. deposit. Grain size is especially variable This till is overlain in places by a veneer of because of the stratified nature of the deposits, loess that ranges in thickness from 0 to 17 which, unlike till, may range from fine sand inches (Indiana Soil Survey, 1956). Depth of to coarse gravel within a vertical interval of leaching is less than in areas of the Center a few feet. Laboratory analyses of single Grove member, ranging from 24 to 42 inches samples, therefore, yield results that are (Indiana Soil Survey, 1956). The soils devel­ probably less indicative of the character of oped on the Cartersburg member are mapped the deposit as a whole than are analyses of till as the Miami, Crosby, and Brookston series, samples. Nevertheless, analytical results which are respectively the well-drained, im­ provide information on the general nature of perfectly drained, and poorly drained mem­ kame and esker deposits. Table 3 gives the bers of the Miami catena. results of size analyses of channel samples Kame !acies.-Within the area mapped as collected from kames in Hancock and John­ Trafalgar Formation there are many small son Counties; the latter locality is about 3~ isolated patches of sand and gravel (fig. 4). miles beyond the western boundary of the Up­ Most of these cover only a few acres or a few per East Fork basin but is within the kame tens of acres each; several are too small in belt of this general area (fig. 4). area to be shown on the map. Some are ex­ Kame and esker gravel generally is char­ pressed topographically as crudely conical to acterized by a great variety of rock types, irregularly shaped hillocks called kames, and so composition, as well as grain size, whereas others, termed eskers, occur as varies from locality to locality. In the Upper discontinuous low ridges that rise 10 to 50 East Fork area, however, pebbles of carbon­ feet above the general level of the surround­ ate rocks (limestone, dolomitic limestone, ing area. These kames and eskers are com­ and dolomite) seem to constitute about three­ posed mainly of stratified sand and gravel, fourths of the gravel fraction (table 4). Other which Wayne (1963) called the kame facies of sedimentary rocks -- sandstone, siltstone, the Trafalgar Formation. shale, and chert--probably range between 5 The thickness of the kame facies at any and 15 percent. The remainder consists of a given locality is roughly proportional to the variety of igneous and metamorphic rock peb­ height of the topographic feature in which the bles: coarse-grained intrusive rocks, such Table 3. --Size analyses of samples of the kame facies of the . Trafalgar Formation [Data from McGregor, 1960, fig. 13 and table 4J

Percentage by weight in each grade size North-central Hancock County Northwestern Johnson County Grade size (SEt SW~ sec. 29, T. 17 N., R. 7 E.) (SEt NEi sec. 16, T. 13 N., R. 3 E.)

Gravel:

1 to 4 in -­ 32

t to 1 in -­ 16

! to! in -- 17

Sand:

Below t in - 45 77 UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS 23

Table 4. --Lithologic composition of gravel fractions from samples of the kame facies of the Trafalgar Formation [Data from McGregor, 1960, table 5]

-- Percentage by weight North-central Hancock County Northwestern Johnson County Rock type (SEt SWt sec. 29, T. 17 N" R. 7 E.) (SEi NEt sec. 16, T. 13 N., R. 3 E.)

Limestone ---- 20 23

Dolomitic limestone 22 15

DolOIY'.ite -- 32 46

Other sedimentary rocks

Igneous rocks ---- 10

Metamorphic rocks-

as granite, syenite, granodiorite, diorite, er (Appendix, well record 1). The formation and gabbro; fine-grained igneous rocks, such appears to reach a maximum thickness of as rhyolite, andesite, and basalt;vein quartz; nearly 100 feet (Appendix, well records 8 and and the metamorphic rocks quartzite, gneiss, 19), but typically it is only a few tens of feet and schist. The percentage of each of these thick (Appendix, well records 9, 16, and 17) rock types is commonly less than 5 percent throughout most of the basin. but in places may be much higher. (See The Jessup Formation was divided by McGregor, 1960, table 5, for greater detail Wayne into two members, the Butlerville Till on percentages of rock types in gravel Member of Illinoian age and the underlying samples. ) Cloverdale Till Member of Kansan age. Ac­ Soils developed on kame and esker deposits cording to Wayne (1963, p. 54), the Clover­ in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin are dale is marked by slightly wider oxidized mapped as the Bellefontaine series (Baldwin zones along joint planes and by an apparent and others, 1922; Tharp and Simmons, 1930; higher pebble content than the Butlerville, but Simmons, Kunkel, and Ulrich, 1937; Ulrich in general the tills are not lithologically dis­ and others, 1948). The depth to fresh gravel tinct. Where the two members are in contact commonly ranges between 2} and 4 feet. they may be identified byreference to a well­ developed paleosolatthe top of the Cloverdale member (Appendix, section 1, unit 12). JESSUP FORMA TION The surficial Jessup Formation in the Up­ per East Fork basin (fig. 4) belongs entirely The Trafalgar Formation is underlain by to the Butlerville member. Only one exposure the Jessup Formation (Wayne, 1963), which of the Cloverdale member is known to be pres­ in general is the oldest unconsolidated unit of ent within the Upper East Fork area, and at Pleistocene age now recognized in Indiana. this locality the Cloverdale is buried, as In most places the Jessup rests directly on elsewhere in the basin, by younger material. bedrock (Appendix, sections 1 and 2), but in The unit is also exposed at several localities a few localities it is underlain by a tongue of in adjacent areas, however, in northeastern the Atherton Formation called the Cagle Loess Jennings County (Appendix, section 1), north­ Member (Wayne, 1958a; 1963, p. 35). Lith­ ern Brown County, and northwestern Marion ologically, the Jessup Formation is 'similar County. POSSibly, therefore, the Cloverdale to the Trafalgar; it consists mostly of till but till is present beneaththe Butlerville through­ also includes thin beds or lenses of gravel, out much of the Upper East Fork Drainage sand, silt, clay, peat, and marl (Appendix, Basin. sections 4 and 5). Unweathered till of the Butlerville mem­ Where it is at or near the surface in the ber is gray and strongly calcareous; the acid­ southeastern and southwestern parts of the neutralizing value or calcium carbonate Upper East Fork Drainage Basin, the Jessup equivalent is given as moderate to high (20 to Formation is generally about 30 feet thick 50 percent) in the Key to Indiana Soils (Indiana (Appendix, section 1; well records 3, 5, and Soil Survey, 1956), but it probably ranges 7). In many places, however, it is thinner only from 20 to 30 percent (Ulrich and others, (Appendix, section 2; well records 2 and 4) 1947, p. 78). The till isratherdeeplyweath­ or even absent, whereas elsewhere it is thick- ered, however, and this characteristic dis­

--- ~..--.... ---...... ---~~ ------­ ------_...... _----- 24 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

tinguishes it from till of the Trafalgar For­ Silt and clayfractions ofunweathered But­ mation. Butlerville till is leached of its lerville till contain quartz, calcite, dolomite, carbonate content to a depth of about 10 feet feldspar, and various clay minerals that have r (Ulrich and others, 1947), in contrast to the been identified as chlorite, kaolinite, illite, much shallower depth of leaching on the Tra­ montmorillonite, a 14 A clay mineral, and falgar tills. The color of Butlerville till in mixed-layer clay minerals (Murray, Leinin­ the unleached but oxidized zone is yellowish ger, and Neumann, 1954; Gravenor, 1954; brown to brownish yellOW. Harrison, 1959; Hensel and White, 1960; The surficial till of the Jessup Formation Droste, Bhattacharya, and Sunderman, 1962; is a moderately compact heterogeneous mix­ Bhattacharya, 1962). Illite or degraded illite ture of mineral and rock fragments that range is the dominant clay mineral in both weath­ in size from boulders to clay. The matrix of ered and unweathered till (Gravenor, 1954; the till is commonly described as a loam to Hensel and White, 1960; Bhattacharya, 1962). coarse loam (Indiana Soil Survey, 1956; Kaolinite is much less abundant than illite, Odell and others, 1960). Laboratory analyses although it is probably more common in both of till considered by Wayne (oral communi­ Jessup tills than inTrafalgar till (Bhattachar­ cation) to belong to the Butlerville member ya, 1962). Montmorillonite was found by were performed by Harrison (1959) on two Murray, Leininger, and Neumann (1954) to samples from northwestern Marion County. be much more abundant in the upper part of The results show that the grain-size distri­ the weathering profile than in unaltered But­ bution of the till at this locality is very sim­ lerville till, but other workers (Hensel and ilar to that of the Trafalgar Formation: 4 White, 1960; Bhattacharya, 1962; Droste, percent granules (4 to 2 mm), 39 percent sand Bhattacharya, and Sunderman, 1962) have (2 to 1/16 mm), 39 percent silt (1/16 to 1/256 found the reverse relationship. Primary cal­ mm), and 18 percent clay (finer than 1/256 cite and dolomite are, of course, absent mm). Small pebbles (32 to 4 mm) constitute from leached horizons. about 8 percent (by weight) of all material The upland surface of the area mapped as below 32 millimeters in diameter. It is prob­ Jessup Formation is veneered with wind­ able that the texture of the Jessup and Tra- deposited silt (loess) similar to but for the Formations is similar throughout a most part older than that at the top of the area. Center Grove member of the Trafalgar For­ The pebble content of Jessup till is prob­ mation. In some places this loess blanket is ably similar tothat of Trafalgar till, at least apparently absent (see Gravenor, 1954), in general aspect. In the two samples of But­ whereas elsewhere it may be as much as 7 lerville till from northwestern MarionCounty or 8 feet thick. The principal lithologic char­ analyzed by Harrison (1959), pebbles of car­ acteristic of the loess is its uniformity of bonate rock are dominant; limestone pebbles texture. According toOdell and others (1960), average about 58 percent and dolomite peb­ the loess is a silt loam; by definition a silt bles about 15 percent of allpebbles not more loam contains 50 percent or more silt (.05 to than 32 millimeters in diameter. Other rock .002 mm) and 12 to 27 percent clay (below types represented are sandstone (5 percent), .002 mm), or 50 to 80 percent silt and less siltstone (3 percent), shale (4 percent), chert than 12 percent clay (Soil Survey staff, 1951, (5 percent), acid igneous rocks {4 percent}, p. 210). basic igneous rocks (I percent), and meta­ The soils of the area underlain by the morphic rocks (5 percent). Jessup Formation are mapped as the Cincin­ Studies of the mineralogy of Jessup till nati series (well drained), the Gibson series have related mainly to changes inclay mineral (moderately well drained), the Avonburg content induced byweathering. For the most series (imperfectly drained), and the Cler­ part, these studies have involved samples of mont series (poorly drained). Onthe Decatur Butlerville till collected in southwesternIndi­ County soil map upland soils developed on 6 ana, and the degree towhich the results would to 10 feet of loess overlying till are mapped apply to the Butlerville and Cloverdale tills of as Clermont, whereas those soils derived the Upper East Forkarea is not known. Fur­ largely from till are mapped as Cincinnati thermore, because of differences in sampling (Baldwin and others, 1922, p. 8). Apparently and analytical techniques, these studies have this distinction has been abandoned because yielded results that are not directly compar­ both series, and also the Gibson and Avon­ able. burg, are now thought of as developed

---_...... _-_....._-­ r

Figure 6. --Map of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin showing topography on the bedrock surface. Contour interval 50 feet. 26 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

on loess ofvariable thickness (10 to 80 inches, according to Indiana Soil Survey, 1956; 0 to 5 0 5 10 15 Miles - 36 inches, according to Odell and others, ul !..l.I.L!ul'_--,-1_--,--,_-11 1960) over Illinoian till.

TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE OF THE BEDROCK SURFACE

The bedrock topography and preglacial drainage of that part of Indiana north of the Wisconsin glacial boundary were discussed in some detail by Wayne (1956). Inasmuch as only the southeastern and southwestern parts of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin lie beyond (south of) this boundary, much of the basin was considered in Wayne's study. Wayne and also McGrain (1949), in his Henry County study, outlined the probable courses of larger preglacial streams by drift-thick­ ness contours, but they were unable to pre­ pare bedrock-topography maps because ac­ curate elevation data on the present topo­ graphic surface were not available at the time RIPLEY of their studies. Prior to Pleistocene glaciation the Upper East Fork area was, for the most part, a maturely dissected westward- to southwest­ Figure 7. --Map showing present drainage ward-sloping plain with maximum relief of (blue) and inferred preglacial drainage about 500 feet (fig. 6). Local reliefwas prob­ (red) in the Upper East Fork Drainage ably highest in the northeastern part of the Basin. area, where a valley that is now completely filled with glacial drift was cut some 300 feet below the adjoining preglacial upland. The part of the basin was deflected southwestward highest part of this buried bedrock surface is toward a master stream that developed along in southeastern Rush County and northeastern the strike of the less resistant Devonian and Decatur County, where some pOints probably MiSSiSSippian shales. Drainage in the central reach an elevation of 1,025 feet above sea part of the basin appears, however, to have level. Farther north, in northern.Rush Coun­ left the area by a gap through the ridge, and ty and Henry County, the top of the bedrock that in the north seems to have flowed north­ seems to be about a hundred feet lower. The westward to either the Montclair or Anderson upland surface descends westward and south­ Valleys of Wayne (1956), which respectively westward to an elevation of about 625 feet in emptied into the Wabash and Teays Valleys. western Shelby County. The regional slope, Most of the buried valleys that follow the therefore, averages nearly 12 feet per mile; regional slope originate near a divide that its direction corresponds so closely with the appears to trend nearly north-south through direction of regional dip (see fig. 10) that one eastern Decatur County and southeasternRush may be certain that the regional slope of the County, whence it extends northwestward to bedrock surface is structurally controlled. central Rush County (fig. 6>. From here it In general, the preglaCial drainage lines continues northward to west-central or north­ follow the regional slope as they cross the western Henry County. A major divide with Upper East Fork area from east to west. approximately this course was recognized by Their courses seem to have been effectively Wayne (1956, p. 18; fig. 7, p. 26) as a north­ blocked, however, in the western part of the erly continuation of what Malott (1922, p. 85) area by a ridge or highland area underlain by called the Laughery Escarpment. East of the resistant rocks of the Borden Group. this divide the drainage entered the White­ Consequently, the drainage in the southern water drainage baSin, according to Wayne

---~ ...... ----­ BEDROCK UNITS 27

(1956, p. 45); the deep buried valley in the erally recognizable, and only the lowermost northeastern part of the area (fig. 6) almost formation can readily be distinguished (fig. certainly was part of the preglacial White­ 9). The major part of the Borden Group r water system. consists principally of alternating beds of In summary, there are two significant dif­ gray siltstone and gray soft shale. The silt­ ferences between the present and preglacial stones are relatively resistant to erosion; drainage patterns of the Upper East Fork area they cap the hills of the Norman Upland and (fig. 7). (1) Whereas the present drainage uphold the steep slopes of the Knobstone Es­ system is dominated by streams that flow in carpment. The New Providence Shale, the a south-southwesterly direction, several of basal formation of the Borden Group, is about the preglacial streams seem to have flowed 175 feet thick and consists of gray, greenish­ more nearly westward. (2) Whereas the area gray, and reddish-brown soft shale that is now drained entirely by the East Fork of weathers rapidly to a sticky, smooth clay. White River, in preglacial time it contributed The Rockford Limestone, a brownish-gray runoff to at least three, or perhaps four, dif­ dolomitic limestone about 5 to 10 feet thick, ferent drainage basins. The alteration of the underlies the New Providence Shale and is drainage is a direct result of Pleistocene gla­ here included as the basal member of unit ciation, which not only destroyed the earlier M. The New Providence and the Rockford pattern but also was the principal controlling are not well exposed because they underlie factor in the development of the present pat­ glacial deposits along the western part of the tern. Scottsburg Lowland. The New Albany Shale (unit DM, 8), which ur,derlies the rocks of unit M, consists BEDROCK UNITS of gray and brown carbonaceous shale that weathers rapidly into small platy fragments. The following descriptions ofthickness and This formation, which is about 120 feet thick lithology of the various bedrock units are (fig. 9), underlies unconsolidated deposits in summarized principally from Dawson (1941), the eastern part of the Scottsburg Lowland in Murray (1955), Patton (1953b), and Shaver central Bartholomew County, southwestern and others (1961), supplemented and modified Shelby County, and eastern Johnson County. by data collected in the preparation of this Outcrops are found in northwestern Jennings report. Principal sources of additional data County and southeastern Bartholomew County, used are well records on file in the Petroleum where thin shale outliers lap up onto the Section, Indiana Geological Survey, and pub­ limestones thatunderlie the Muscatatuck Re­ lished field observations from annual reports gional Slope. The major part of the New Al­ ofpredecessors of the Indiana Geological Sur­ bany Shale is of Devonian age, but the upper vey(Borden, 1876; Collett, 1882; Elrod, 1882, few feet of the formation are of earliest Mis­ 1883, 1884; Foerste, 1897, 1898; Kindle, siSSippian age. 1901; and Price, 1900). Beneath the New Albany Shale is a group For purposes of illustration and discus­ of limestones and dolomites of Devonian age. sion the bedrock formations of the Upper The contact between these rocks and the New East Fork Drainage Basin are grouped into Albany is apparently one of very slight dis­ informally designated units, each of which is conformity, but because of the extensive cover identified by a letter symbol that signifies its of unconsolidated deposits in the Upper East geologic age. The units are described in de­ Fork Drainage Basin, few exposures of the scending order, from youngest to oldest. contact are available and these are inadequate Rocks of unit M are Mississippian in age. to confirm the suggested relationship. The Borden Group, which makes up the larg­ Limestones and dolomites of Devonian age er part of unit M, is exposed at the surface (unit D, fig. 8) aggregate about 80 feet thick or directly underlies unconsolidated deposits and consist of three formations (fig. 9). The along the southwestern margin of the Upper uppermost of these is the North Vernon Lime­ East Fork Drainage Basin (fig. 8). A max­ stone, a gray coarsely crystalline crinoidal imum thickness of approximately 500 feet of limestone 1 to 3 feet thick, which in the Upper Borden rocks is present in this area, and East Fork basin is recognizable only in Bar­ most of the group is represented, only the tholomew County and northern Jennings Coun­ upper part being absent. The component for­ ty. Beneath this formation is the Jefferson­ mations of the group are not, however, gen­ ville Limestone, which consists of light-gray

------.... --~-.....-­ ..•--.... R9E RIOE RilE T 19 N

- T T 18 18 N; N

T 17 N

T IS N

T T 15 N

T 14 N

T 1:3 N

T T 12 12 N N

T T II II N N

T T 10 N

T 9 N

T e N

Miles

N Bose modified from 1° X 2° Army Map Se.rvice maps

Figure 8. --Map showing bedrock geology of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin.

------_...._-_....._------­ BEDROCK UNITS 29

thickly stratified fossiliferous limestone un­ derlain by tan to brown dolomitic limestone and dolomite, altogether 35 to 80 feet thick. r At the base of unit D is the Geneva Dolomite, a brown crystalline dolomite generally 30 to 40 feet thick but ina few places much thicker or much thinner. All these Devonian forma­ tions are best displayed along the valleys of Flatrock, Clifty, and Sand Creeks; elsewhere they are mostly drift covered. The limestones and dolomites of Devonian age are separated from rocks of Silurian age EXPLANATION by an uneven surface of disconformity that truncates several Silurian formations. The basal Devonian formation, the Geneva Dolo­ mite, is of variable thickness and within the Upper East Fork area directly overlies at Shales and siltstones af least four different formations with a com­ Mississippian age bined thickness of more than 100 feeL At any single outcrop, however, the basal contact of the Geneva appears only slightly uneven. Rocks of Silurian age (unit S, fig. 8) total Block and gray sholes of late Devonian and early Mississippian age 80 to 180 feet thick and consist of six for­ mations (fig. 9). The uppermost of these is the Wabash Formation (Pinsak and Shaver, 1964, p. 34 ff.), gray dolomitic siltstone and limestones and dolomites shale about 50 feet in maximum thickness and of Devonian age present only along the north edge of the Up­ per East ForkDrainage Basin beneath uncon­ solidated deposits. The stratigraphic posi­ tion and lithologic character of these rocks limestones, dolomites, and identifythem as the Mississinewa Shale Mem­ sholes - of Silurian age ber of this formation. Next below is the Louisville Limestone, a gray crystalline thinly stratified limestone 45 feet thick inthe northern part of the area, thinner to the south, Sholes and limestones and absent in a few places in Decatur and Bar­ of Ordovician age tholomew Counties. Below this is the Waldron Shale, a gray calcareous shale with a max­ imum thickness of 15 also thin and in places absent in Decatur County. Geologic boundary at or near surface Thickness variations and local absence of the above three formations are the result of pre-Devonian erosion. The Laurel Lime­ stone (fig. 9) was in a few places reached by Geologic boundary inferred beneath this erosion, but it was not much reduced in thick unconsolidated deposits thickness and is rather ulliformly 50 feet thick throughout the mapped area. The Laurel consists of light-gray to light yellowish­ brown very finely crystalline thinly stratified dolomitic limestone with much chert in the upper part. Beneath this is the Osgood For­ mation, gray argillaceous limestone and cal­ careous shale 10 to 20 feet thick. At the base of unit S is the Brassfield Limestone, a stra­ tum of coarsely crystalline ledge-forming limestone usually called" cream" or" salmon"

------...--~..--... _-­ 30 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

>­ in color. Throughout its area of outcrop the ::r ties the Brassfield is absent and the Osgood r f­ ..J is the basal Silurian formation. Traced northwestward beneath the drift, however, the Brassfield thickens to about 30 feet inHancock County. The contact of the Brassfield with underlying rocks of Ordovician age is an un­ even surface of disconformity, and variations in thickness of the Brassfield are therefore probably the result of unequal deposition r a th­ Borden Group, upper part, undifferentiated er than erosion. All the Silurianformations except the Wa­ Z bash Formation are exposed along stream Whitewater Formation of

Z the Richmond Group. The Whitewater con­ w and calcareous shales (fig. 9). It comes to o o the surface only in the valley of Sand Creek; in other areas along the eastern margin of the Geneva Dolomite basin it directly underlies the unconsolidated Wabash Formation deposits. Rocks older than late Ordovician do not reach the bedrock surface in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin and are therefore not discussed here. Bedrock units are further described in the Appendix (sections 1 and 2; well records 1 and 6).

SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC HISTORY

(,) o Whitewater Formation EARLIER DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY >o o a:: o The span of geologic history pertinent to the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin begins Figure 9. --Columnar section showing in late Ordovician time with deposition of the bedrock units of the Upper East Fork shales and limestones of the Whitewater For­ Drainage Basin. Vertical scale ap­ mation{fig.9). These rocks record the pres­ proximately 1 inch to 100 feet. ence of broad, shallow, warm, mud-bottomed

~~------...... -­ SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC HISTORY 31

seas in which life was abundant. Toward the shallowing water, perhaps on a large delta end of Ordovician time the area was raised front. Sedimentation was rapid and waters - above sea level. The rocks were slightly were murky; sea life apparently was not tilted as part of the region was uplifted some­ abundant as the fossil record is very scanty. what more than other parts, and erosion This evidence indicates that the distant land­ shaped these rocks into a land surface of gen­ mass from which these sediments were de­ tle relief. Thus the Whitewater Formation rived was being more actively eroded than was reduced in thickness, in places perhaps before. as much as 50 feet. With this depositional episode the earlier We know that this lost page of geologie phase of geologic history of the Upper East history extends intoSilurian time because the Fork Drainage Basin fades into obscurity. rocks that rest directlyupon the unconformity Probablythe seas continued to cover the area that marks the old land surface are not of and deposition continued for some time, but earliest Silurian age. The events of much of rocks younger than those of the BordenGroup Silurian time are recorded, however, by a are not present in the area, and one can only series of limestones and dolomites which in­ infer that if younger rocks were present, they dicate that the area was again covered by have been removed by erosion. Finally the broad, shallow, probably warm seas. Ter­ seas withdrew, and the rocks were uplifted rigenous muds that later were compacted into and tilted to their present structural attitude. shales form only a small part of the sedi­ ments, and from this fact it is inferred that land areas were far away and topographically low. In parts of the area mapped several of the Silurian formations are thin or missing as a result of a second episode of uplift, tilt­ ing, and erosion of the rock strata that began as Silurian time came to an end. Deposition did not begin again until about a third of Devonian time had passed. The limestones and dolomites that were then de­ posited indicate open, shallow, warm seas that were even clearer than before. Late in Devonian time, however, the dominant mode of deposition changed. The area was invaded by a flood of fine-grained sediment, an in­ dication perhaps of a sudden increase in the rate of erosion in the distant source regions. The sea was not deep, but wave-stirring of the bottom was prevented by a floating mat of marine plants from which a steady rain of fine-grained organic fragments fell, to be incorporated in the sediment accumulating on the sea floor. Thus the black New Albany Shale was formed (Lineback, in preparation). Few organisms lived on the dimly lit. muddy bottom, and most of the fossils in the New Albany represent floating or swimming or­ ganisms. Abundant plant debris and a few large trunks of trees rafted from the distant Figure 10. --Map of the Upper East Fork source regions are found among the fossil Drainage Basin showing generalized remains. geologic structure. Contoured horizon Black shale deposition continued without is top of unit 0 (rocks of Ordovician interruption into earliest Mississippian time age); other horizons show similar but soon thereafter was succeeded by the dep­ structural configuration. Contours osition of bluish-gray muds that became the dashed in areas of little information, shales and siltstones of the Borden Group. dotted where surmised. Elevations in These rocks apparently were laid down in feet above sea level. 32 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

The westerly dip of approximately 20 feet per the Borden Group into the softer New Prov­ mile (fig. 10) was not the result of a single idence and New Albany Shales below. The movement; rather, it represents the cumula­ drainage pattern of the Upper East Fork ba­ tion of many minor movements, dating back sin at this time probably did not differ sig­ perhaps to Ordovician time and indicated in nificantly from the bedrock drainage pattern part by westward thickening of several of the postulated in figures 6 and 7. bedrock formations.

PLEISTOCENE HISTORY EROSIONAL INTERVAL The final chapter in the geologic history Few details are known about the geologic of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin begins history of the Upper East Fork area during with the advance of a huge continental ice the time interval between the emergence of sheet, which overspread much of North the bedrock units and the deposition of the America during the Pleistocene Epoch. With oldest unconsolidated deposits. The area the possible exception ofa narrow strip of the probably underwent several cycles of uplift Norman Upland in Brown and Bartholomew and erosion during this period, but there is Counties, all the Upper East Fork basin was no direct evidence of most of the events. The covered by ice sometime during the Pleisto­ earliest cycle for which any evidence now re­ cene. In most places the ice probably eroded mains probably terminated with the production the preglacial terrain, but in some places of a gently rolling surface that Malott (1922) little or no erosion of the preglacial surface considered to be part of the Lexington or seems to have occurred, as indicated by well Highland Rim Peneplain. According to Malott records which show that the oldest glacial (1922, p. 129-131), this erosion surface was deposits present rest on disintegrated bedrock formed during the early part of the Tertiary (Appendix, well record 7, unit 6; well record Period, but later workers (Wayne and Thorn­ 14, unit 6) and on decomposed bedrock and bury, 1951, p. 25; Thornbury and Deane, residual soil (Appendix, well record 4, unit 1955, p. 32; Wayne, 1956, p. 46-47) believe 4; well record 5, unit 5; and well record 19, that the age of the peneplain was middle to units 7 and S). Preglacial drainage lines late Tertiary. were largely obliterated as the bedrock val­ The formation of the Lexington Peneplain leys became choked with ice and filled with was followed, probably near the close of the glacier deposits and ice-derived meltwater Tertiary Period, by an episode of uplift that sediments. (See Wayne, 1956, p. 49-57, for inaugurated a new cycle of erosion. Streams a discussion of major drainage changes in were rejuvenated and entrenched themselves Indiana. ) some 200 to 300 feet below the uplifted Lex­ Four distinct periods of cold climate or ington surface; the surface is represented glacial ages, each followed by a warm post­ now, according to Malott (1922, p. 130-131), glacial period, affected the Upper East Fork by flat-topped ridges at nearly accordant ele­ area. During the time of the earliest glaci­ vations between 900 and 1,000 feet in the ation' called the Nebraskan Age, continental Norman Upland (fig. 1) and by much of the ice extended as far south as the latitude of upland surface of the Dearborn Upland just southern Indiana elsewhere in the Midwest east of the Upper East Fork basin. The high­ (see Flint and others, 1959), but it is not est areas of the buried bedrock surface, at known whether any part of Indiana was glaci­ 900 to 1, 000 feet elevation, in the east-central ated. The Upper East Fork area, if not ac­ and northeastern parts of the basin (fig. 6) tually covered by glacier ice, was probably may also be part of this Tertiary erosion subjected to intensive frost action, strong surface. wind activity, and other processes that char­ After most of the stream entrenchment acterize periglacial regions. The Nebraskan had occurred, broad flood plains were formed Age was followed by the interglacial Aftonian along the major streams, particularly in Age, during which the climate of the Upper areas of outcrop of the less resistant bedrock East Fork area was probably not unlike that formations. Malott (1922, p. 166-170) be­ of today. lieved that the Scottsburg Lowland was formed During the second or Kansan episode of at this time as the streams downcut through glaciation the ice sheet almost certainly cov­ the more resistant rocks in the upper part of ered most of the Upper East Fork Drainage SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC HISTORY 33

Basin, as indicated by the distribution of pendix, section 2, unit 22; section 5, unit 5). cial sediments identified as Kansan in age by Except in places where it has been eroded, Wayne (1958a). In the southwestern part of the Sangamon soil is buried and preserved r the basin the western limit of the ice was beneath younger deposits of Wisconsin age, probably controlled by the Knobstone Escarp­ as in the vicinity of Greensburg, where expo­ ment, which served as an effective barrier to sures showing fresh till overlying a deeply further westward movement of the glacier. weathered older till were described more than The ice eroded the subglacial surface in some 80 years ago by T. C. Chamberlin (1883, p. places and dropped its load elsewhere as the 333). A new drainage pattern also developed Cloverdale till. Although only one exposure during the Sangamon interval, and the older of the Cloverdale is known from the Upper alluvial sediments (Prospect Formation, fig. East Fork area, it is presumed to underlie 4) that underlie low terraces along tributaries younger glacial sediments throughout much of the Driftwood River in western Bartholo­ of the basin. mew County may have been deposited at that The retreat of the Kansan ice was initiated time. by a climatic amelioration that culminated in The warm Sangamon interval was followed the Yarmouth Age. During this warm inter­ by the Wisconsin Age, the fourth and last glacial period the fresh Cloverdale till was major cold period of the Pleistocene Epoch. weathered, and a new drainage pattern began The southern margin of the Wisconsin ice to form on its surface. Flood-plain deposits sheet was strongly lobate all across the east­ were probably laid down along some of the ern United States, as indicated by the distri­ new drainage lines, for Yarmouth flood-plain bution of Wisconsin till and by the concentric sediments have been identified by Wayne pattern of arcuate end moraines that mark (1958a) at localities in Monroe County some significant stillstands of the ice front. One 20 miles west of the Upper East Fork area of the many tongues of ice that protruded and elsewhere in Indiana. from the southern part of the glacier was the During the third major period of Pleisto­ East White Sublobe of the Ontario-Erie Lobe cene glaciation, known as the Illinoian Age, (Horberg and Anderson, 1956). glacier ice again covered nearlyall the Upper The East White Sublobe entered the Upper East Fork area. The Illinoian ice advanced East Fork area from the northeast. As it beyond the Kansan drift border (see Wayne, advanced, a discontinuous thin layer of pro­ 1958b), depositing the Butlerville till and glacial windblown silt (loess) was deposited destroying the still youthful drainage pattern on the Sangamon soil at the top of the Illinoi­ that had formed on the surface of the Kansan an till, but the loess was soon buried in much drift. The Knobstone Escarpment again of the area as the Center Grove till was plas­ served as a barrier to westward movement tered down by the advancing Wisconsin ice. of the ice in the southwestern part of the ba­ In many places the basal part of the Center sin, so the Illinoian glacial boundary in that Grove till bears inclusions of weathered But­ area lies only a few miles beyond the Kansan lerville till and Sangamon soil and wood frag­ border. Warm periods within the Illinoian ments, which were scraped up by the Wis­ during which times the ice sheet tem­ consin ice and incorporated into its load porarily retreated, are suggested by thin (Appendix, section 2, unit 23; section 3, unit fossiliferous silt beds within the Butlerville 2; section 4, unit 4; and section 5, unit 6). member elsewhere in Indiana (Wayne, 1963, Most of the Upper East Fork Drainage Ba­ p. 53-54, 55); at least one such bed may be sin was glaciated during the Wisconsin Age, present in the Upper East Fork area (Appen­ although here, as elsewhere in Indiana and dix, section 4, unit 1). The southeastern the southern Great Lakes region, the ice and southwestern parts of the Upper East sheet did not extend so far south during the Fork basin were not again glaciated after the Wisconsin as during the Kansan and Illinoian final recession of the Illinoian ice sheet, as Ages. The snout of the East White Sublobe indicated by the fact that in these areas the pushed southward to the mouth of the basin in Butlerville member is at the surface, whereas southeastern Bartholomew County and north­ farther north it is buried by younger drift. western Jennings County, but the ice did not The interglacial Sangamon that fol­ cover the southeastern and southwestern parts lowed the retreat of the Illinoian ice resulted of the basin. At its maximum extent the edge in the formation of well-developed soil and of the ice stood along the distal (outer) mar­ weathering profiles on the Illinoian till (Ap­ gin of Leverett's (Leverett and Taylor, 1915,

.~------... --~-....------­ 34 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

p. 77-86) Shelbyville Morainic System. The eral southern limit of the Cartersburg till margin of the East White Sublobe and also sheet. In the southeastern part of the basin - the lobate form of the ice are indicated by the Cartersburg till boundary follows a line the boundary betweenthe Jessup and Trafalgar that trends generally northeast-southwest Formations (fig. 4), along which the Illinoi­ between Rushville and Columbus (fig. 4). an drift sheet (Butlerville Till Member of the Southeast of this line loess deposition was Jessup Formation) emerges as the surficial probably continuous, as suggested by the unit from beneath the thicker Wisconsin drift greater thickness ofloess in this area, where (Trafalgar Formation) to the north. it is at the surface, than to the northwest, Not long after it had reached its maximum where it is overlain by Cartersburg till. position, however, the East White Sublobe Many of the streams that constitute the began to recede. Much meltwater from the strong subparallel drainage pattern of the shrinking ice was probably carried off by a eastern or slope portion of the Upper East large ice-marginal stream along the western Fork basin follow inherited glaCial channels of the sublobe. Great quantities of sand of probable Wisconsin age. If one assumes and gravel that constitute part of the outwash that the basinwas actively glaciated only twice facies of the Atherton Formation were de­ during Wisconsin time, as suggested by the posited by this stream between north-central stratigraphic evidence, then the elements of and southeastern Bartholomew County (fig. the present drainage pattern probably came 4), and also downstream below the mouth of into existence during the latter part of this the present Upper East Fork Drainage Basin. second stade. The drainageways may have The Wisconsin episode of glaciation was originated as channels beneath the ice, their not a single event but was instead punctuated courses being controlled mainly by the sub­ by several advances, stillstands, and reCeS­ glacial gradient and direction of movement of sions of the ice. The East White Sublobe re­ the ice (northeast to southwest). Alterna­ advanced at least once after retreating from tively, the drainageways may have origi­ its maximum or so-called Shelbyville posi­ nated as proglacial channels formed as the tion. In Malott's interpretation two such re­ East White Sublobe receded to the northeast. advances took place, the first during his If, on the other hand, the eastern margin of Champaign Substage and the second during the glacier withdrew to the northwest, as his Bloomington Substage (Malott, 1922, p. may be indicated by the northeast-southwest 152; pI. 3), at which times the ice deposited trend of the Champaignand Bloomington Mo­ the Champaign and Bloomington Morainic raines of Leverett and Malott, then the chan­ Systems of Leverett (Leverett and Taylor, nels probably originated as ice-marginal 1915, p. 87-122). According to Wayne (1956, streams along the southeastern edge of the p. 56; 1963), however, stratigraphic evi­ retreating ice. dence indicates that the ice readvanced only Regardless of the exact origin of the gla­ once during Wisconsin time. c,ial channels, sand and gravel deposits of the In its second advance the East White Sub­ Atherton Formation were laid down as out­ lobe again entered the Upper East Fork area wash-plain and valley-train deposits by melt­ from the northeast, probably flowing about water streams that derived both their dis­ S. 35° - 40° W. Proglacial outwash sediments charge and their load from the melting ice. deposited adjacent to and beyond the edge of Most of the silty and clayey materials were the advancing ice were reworked by the wind, carried farther downstream and deposited which scooped up and redistributed the finer beyond the mouth of the Upper East Fork grained particles over a much larger area. Drainage Basin. Some of the finer grained Thus the Center Grove till was blanketed with materials in the outwash, however, were a veneer of loess. Cartersburg till was then picked up by the wind and redistributed over deposited atop the loess by the readvancing the upland, as indicated by the thin blanket ice sheet, and so the silt is now found sand­ of loess that in places overlies the Carters- wiched between the two main till units of the till. Trafalgar Formation. The East White Sub­ Later in Wisconsin time the Upper East lobe did not advance so far south as in its Fork Drainage Basin was not reglaciated, al­ earlier movement, however. The edge of though the lobate southern of the ice the ice during this second advance followed sheet was very active farther north inIndiana. in a general way the distal boundary of the The Big Blue River drainagewayand one or Champaign Moraine, as indicated by the gen­ two other glacial channels may have carried APPLIED GEOLOGY 35

meltwater drainage southwestward to the East congressional township of 9 square miles, a Fork, but the evidence is obscure. predetermined square-mile section served The modern drainage pattern of the Upper as a sample. The relief in each of these East Fork basin evolved during late Wisconsin sampled sections was found by inspection of r and Recent time as some of the glacial drain­ the 71-minute quadrangle maps. The average ageways were largely abandoned and other relief per square mile was computed for each channels became established as permanent group offour adjacent samples; localvariation drainage lines. In these latter watercourses within each group was determined by sub­ modern flood plains developed, upon which tracting the smaller relief value from the streams deposited alluvial sediments of the larger. Shaded areas in figure 11 are those Martinsville Formation. Glacial outwash in which average relief, as thus calculated, terraces were formed along some of the chan­ is in excess of 50 feet per square mile, and nels as the streams incised their courses be­ local variation is less than half the average low the surface of the older meltwater de­ relief. Such areas could be described as posits. Wind erosion and depositionwere still having fairly uniformly moderate relief and active processes, as evidenced by the for­ would generally be topographically suited to mation of sand dune s along the valley of the multipurpose reservoirs of moderate size. Z East Fork at about this time. As the climate Within the Upper East Fork basin there are became warmer chemical weathering proc­ 220 miles of major watercourses having a esses were intensified, and modern soils drainage area of 100 square miles or more. began to form on the various surficial ma­ Less than 60 miles of these are in areas of terials. fairly uniformly moderate relief; the remain­ der are in areas of low relief less well suited to moderate-sized multipurpose reservoirs. APPLIED GEOLOGY

This report was prepared at the request LEAKAGE POTENTIAL of the Indiana Flood Control and Water Re­ sources Commissionto aid in the planning of Leakage problems result when water is dams and reservoirs in the Upper East Fork stored over highly permeable materials. In Drainage Basin, and it is therefore appropri­ the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin serious ate to summarize briefly that part of the data leakage problems may be encountered in gla­ that applies directly to this planning. Among cial sands and gravels and in fractured or the factors considered in the selection of dam cavernous limestones. and reservoir sites are many that to some Two general areas of leakage must be con­ extent are controlled by elements of geologic sidered, leakage around and under the dam nature, including topographic suitability, itself and leakage from the reservoir into leakage potential, bearing strength offounda­ adjacent watersheds at lower elevations. The tion materials, slope stability in the reservoir occurrence of highly permeable materials at area, and availability of construction ma­ all potential damsites must be carefully in­ terials. Nongeologic factors that influence vestigated, but their presence farther up­ site selection are not considered here. stream generally will not present a serious problem unless there are short direct leakage paths into adjacent watersheds or unless TOPOGRAPHIC SUITABILITY term water storage is a major consideration.

Ideally, the surface area of a reservoir should not be excessive inrelationto the vol­ Z Reservoirs of moderate size are here ume of water stored, and the area should not considered to be those with drainage areas of fluctuate widely with changes in pool level. about 50 to 250 square miles and surface On the basis of both considerations, a res­ areas that range from perhaps 200 to 2,000 ervoir basin with moderate topographic relief acres. Examples of moderate-sized reser­ is required. The Upper East Fork Drainage voirs are Lake Lemon (Monroe County), Basin is deficient in such areas. Versailles Lake (Ripley County), Geist Res­ To obtain a rough quantitative estimate of ervoir (Marion County), Mansfield Reser­ variations in topographic relief within the voir (Parke County), and Morse Reservoir Upper East Fork Drainage Basin, a brief (Hamilton County). statistical study was made. For each quarter 36 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDLA.NA

materials (sand and silt) and dune sands are l-----­ generally less permeable, and leakage can be expected to take place at a slower rate than - through the coarser outwash. On the basis of purely geologic considerations, the selec­ tion of damsites in areas underlain directly by thick deposits of either the dune or out­ wash facies of the Atherton Formation is not recommended. Alluvial deposits of the Martinsville and Prospect Formations are, for the most part, finer grained and less permeable than the outwash deposits of the Atherton Formation. In some places, however, the Martinsville consists mainly of sand and gravel and would be unfavorable for water retention, but where the formation is composed largely of silt and clay, leakage through the unit should not be a serious problem, particularly if the unit is thin and overlies till or relatively imperme­ able bedrock. The till deposits of the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin should, in general, make ex­ cellent dam foundations and reservoir floors. The tills of both the Trafalgar and Jessup Formations are relatively dense, compact sediments with a moderately high content of Figure 11. --Map of the Upper East Fork silt and claythat appears to average about 55 Drainage Basin showing streams that or 60 percent (p. 20-21, 24). These tills are drain areas of at least 100 square virtually impermeable and should present no miles and areas that have relatively leakage problem. Careful examination of any uniform relief of at least 50 feet per proposed damsite in areas underlain by the square mile (shaded). Trafalgar and Jessup Formations is recom­ mended, nevertheless, to insure that the tills Deposits of the kame facies of the Tra­ do not contain thick or extensive interbeds of falgar Formation are coarse grained (p. 22) sand, gravel, or silt. and extremely permeable, and serious leak­ Nearly all the limestone and dolomite for­ age problems undoubtedly would result should mations of the Upper East Fork Drainage Ba­ reservoir water come into contact with them. sin are of Devonian, Silurian, or Ordovieian But since most of these deposits cover only age (fig. 9). The more soluble of these rocks, relatively small areas on the uplands (fig. 4), those that present the greater hazard in dam the kame facies will present a problem only and reservoir construction, are in the North in those few places where individual kames Vernon and Jeffersonville Limestones at or and eskers are broken by valleys. near the top of unit D. The North Vernon Locations in which coarse-grained sedi­ Limestone is nowhere more than 3 feet thick ments of the Atherton Formation 'occur at in the Upper East Fork area, but it is highly the surface are also unfavorable for dam and calcitic (Murray, 1955, p. 64) and is there­ reservoir sites. Sand and gravel deposits of fore quite soluble. Solution features are ex­ the outwash facies of the Atherton, because tensive in this formation in the limited areas of their grain-Size distribution (p. 17-18), in which it crops out, principally along the stratified character, and high permeability, lower part of Sand Creek in Jennings County. will present leakage problems similar to those The underlying and more extensive Jeffer­ ofthe kame facies of the Trafalgar Formation. sonville Limestone is variable in composition The Atherton are much more exten­ (Murray, 1955, p. 64). In the upper part of sive, however, and because of their distri­ this limestone, which typically is fairly cal­ bution along drainage lines (fig. 4) require citic and light gray, solution cavities are careful consideration. Finer grained outwash common. The lower part of the formation APPLIED GEOLOGY 37

T T r 12 12 N N EXPLANATION 1llI] T T Areo I. Structurolly weok sholes II II constitute a principal hazard to N N dam and reservoir construction

T Areo 2. Reodily soluble limestones 10 constiMe a principal hazard to N dam and reservoir canstruction

T Area 3. Maderately soluble limestones and 9 dolomites and thin beds of structurally weak N shales constitute principal hazards to dam and reservoir construction

~ Exposed geologic boundary T 8 N Concealed or indefinite geologic boundary

T 7 N

Figure 12. --Map of southeastern part of the Upper East Fork Drainage B.asin showing areas of potentially cavernous and structurally weak bedrock.

is darker and dolomitic (Appendix, well rec­ in the younger drift area to the north and west. ords 1 and 6), and consequently is less cav­ Buried solution features in the younger drift ernous. Winslow (1960, p. 15-16) empha­ area probably are plugged with glacial de­ sized this color relationship as an indicator posits and ingeneral constitute no major haz­ of solubility of these rocks. The area of out­ ard, but investigation is warranted wherever crop of the North Vernon and Jeffersonville the drift will be stripped from the bedrock, Limestones is shown as area 2 on 12. as at dam abutments and spillways. Beneath the zone of readily soluble lime­ The Geneva Dolomite, the lowermost De­ stones is a zone consisting principally of vonianformation of the area (fig. 9), is a rel­ moderately soluble impure limestones, dolo­ atively pure dolomite and therefore is not mites, and interspersed thin beds of shale commonly cavernous. Solution-widened (area 3, fig. 12). This zone includes 'allbed­ jOints are present in the Geneva, however, at rock formations from the Geneva Dolomite several localities where jt disconformably down to the oldest rocks exposed within the overlies the Louisville Limestone. These area mapped, the Whitewater Formation (fig. openings apparently have worked upwardfrom 9). These rocks crop out principally along similar solution-widened joints in the Louis­ Sand, Clifty, and Flatrock Creeks (fig. 12), ville, a dolomitic limestone that is only mod­ but solution features are not common in these erately soluble. These conditions prevail areas except along Sand Creek. It seems principally along Sand and Wyaloosing Creeks probable that the thinner and older drift cover in north-central Jennings County; tothe north in the Sand Creek area allows bedrock topo­ the Louisville becomes more dolomitic and graphic features, including sinkholes and less cavernous, and the Geneva rests on other other solution phenomena, to be better ex­ less soluble Silurianformations. The cherty at the present surface than they are and dolomitic Laurel Limestone is variable 38 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

in composition (Patton, 1953b, p. 27); solu­ strongfor abutments and foundations of earth­ tion features are common in the Laurel only fill dams. One or more joint sets cross most along Sand Creek, where numerous caves, of the limestone and dolomite beds, but except r sinkholes, and solution-widened joints mark where they are enlarged by solution these its outcrop. Older limestones in the area are jOints probably will not present major struc­ too thin or too impure to contain extensive tural problems. solution features. Shales and shaly limestones weather rap­ idly on exposure, and where structures are to be founded upon such rocks it is generally BEARING STRENGTH OF FOUNDATIO:-l MATERIALS necessary to take precautions to prevent the development of a weak and potentially plastic The strength of the various earth materials layer at the base of the structure. The New upon which or against which the dam and ap­ Providence Shale (fig. 9) weathers rapidly to purtenant structures will rest is animportant a soft plastic clay, but this formation does consideration in damsite planning. In the not crop out extensively in the Upper East Upper East Fork Drainage Basinvalley walls Fork Drainage Basin. The New AlbanyShale, and valley floors typically are composed of which crops out along the lower course of different materials. Valley walls are com­ Sand Creek and on Little Sand Creek (fig. 8 monly bedrock, till, or sand and gravel; val­ and area 1, fig. 12), weathers less rapidly, ley floors are generally outwash or alluvial but here the possibility of slippage along bed­ deposits. Sound unweathered material must ding surfaces must be investigated because be found in valley walls for the placing of the formation crops out in an area in which abutments. Stable, relatively impermeable the westerly dip is steeper than average for material must be found in valley floors to the region (fig. 10). There are several beds carry the load of the structure. of potentially weak shale in area 3 of figure Bearing strengths of most of theunconsol­ 12; these shales will present minor problems idated sediments of the basin should be ade­ in many places, but generally they are suf­ quate to support earth-fill dams and associ­ ficiently thin that precautionary measures ated structures. Alluvial sediments of the may be undertaken. Martinsville and Prospect Formations and layers of silt and sand within the Trafalgar and Jessup Formations will probably present SLOPE STABILITY I:-I TIIE RESERVOIR AREA some problems, however, because of their relatively high water content. Sands and When a new reservoir is filled with water gravels of the Atherton Formation and of the for the first time, the drastically changed kame facies of the Trafalgar Formationprob­ hydrologic conditions in earth materials that ably have adequate bearing values, but in form the reservoir walls may cause formerly many places they are loosely packed and may stable slopes to slump. This process may settle or slide under strong pressures; these continue for several years, especially in sediments should therefore be carefully ex­ areas behveen high and low poollevels. Most amined and tested. The Trafalgar and Jessup seriously affected are poorly sorted clay- and tills, where uniform and unweathered, should silt-rich unconsolidated sediments, such as form good to excellent foundations; the de­ tills. Many sands and gravels are not sig­ posits generallyare dense and compact, most nificantly less stable when wet than when dry. of the till having been subject to strong pre­ Sound bedrock walls are least likely to be consolidation pressures at the time of dep­ affected except where held up in part by osition. The principal drawback of till is the shales, which become plastic and Slippery possibility that mineralogic composition, when wet and are likely to permit sliding of grain size, density, consolidation, and per­ otherwise sound overlying material. meability may change significantly within Slumping is not likely to be more than a short distances. minor problem at most potential reservoir Aside from the problem of leakage already sites in the Upper East Fork Drainage Basin. discussed, most of the bedrockformations of Probably the most serious result of slumping the area are, where unweathered, suitably CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 39

will be slight reductions in permanent pool CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS r capacity and useful reservoir life. FOR FURTHER STUDY 1. Within the Upper East Fork Drainage AVAILABILITY OF CONSTRCCTIO!,; MATERIALS Basin only limited areas are topographically suitable for moderate sized to large multi­ Construction materials suitable for earth­ purpose reservoirs, and these areas present fill dams are available in ample supply in moderate to severe leakage problems that most of the Upper East Fork probably would be expensive to overcome. Basin. Most of the necessary materials are Geologically, the basin is much better suited available from the unconsolidated deposits. to small dams and reservoirs than to large Unweathered tills of both the Trafalgar and ones. Jessup Formations, because of their dense, 2. In view of the above factors, we rec­ compact character and moderately high con­ ommend that an integrated plan of watershed tent of silt and clay (p. 20-21, 24), are vir­ control be formulated for the entire drainage tually impermeable and should make excellent basin. This plan should take into account the rolled-earth fill. Beds or lenses of sand and geologic conditions and limitations in each gravel that occur as interlayers within these part of the area. formations should cause no serious problem 3. At least two types of control struc­ except in the few places where these more tures, both primarily for temporary constitute a of retention of floodwaters, should be consid­ the deposit. ered: Sand and gravel for use as concrete ag­ (a) Conventional-type structures at top­ gregate, subgrade material, road metal, or ographically suitable sites, with other purposes is present in nearly all parts areas of 50 to 250 square miles. Because of of the area (fig. 4). Coarse sand and gravel the short periods during which these struc­ is available from kames and eskers (kame tures would be used, leakage problems could facies of the Trafalgar Formation), from val­ probably be satisfactorily resolved. ley trains and outwash plains (outwash facies (b) Low, wide structures in areas of low of the Atherton Formation), and in some relief with larger drainage areas. places from flood-plain deposits (Martins­ problems would be minimized, partlybecause ville Formation). In general, material from the reservoirs would be shallow. the Martinsville Formation is less desirable 4. Several areas, mostly in the than that from the Trafalgar and Atherton part of the basin, merit further investigation Formations because of its higher content of as sites for conventional-type struc­ silt and clay and also organic matter. The tures designed for temporary retention of windblown sands (dune facies) of the Atherton floodwaters. Sand Creek above Brewersville, Formation are too fine for aggregate Clifty Creek in the vicinity of Hartsville, and road metal, and deposits of the Prospect Flatrock River near St. Paul, Blue River Formation in western Bartholomew County above Morristown, Sugar Creek above are unsuitable for the same reason. town, and numerous other sites on smaller Deleterious rock types are present in streams should be studied if this of res­ all gravel deposits. Available data ervoir is desired. indicate that the gravel deposits in the Upper 5. Areas of low relief possibly suitable East Fork area contain pebbles or chips of for broad shallow reservoirs for the tempo­ hard sandstone and shale, rary retention of floodwaters occur in the and some soft igneous 8.nd metamorphic rocks, southwestern or trough part of the basin. such as schist (p. 18-19, 22-23). The per­ Driftwood River, Flatrock River, Blue centages of these deleterious rock types are River, and Sugar Creek in the area between low, but because vary from Columbus, Franklin, and Shelbyville should to place lithologic should be be studied ifthis type of reservoir is suitable made to determine if the at any partic­ for flood-control requirements. ular site is satisfactory for the intended use. 6. Adequate supplies of suitable con­ Limestone and dolomite suitable for rip­ struction materials are available nearly rap and, if necessary, for crushed-stone ag­ everywhere throughout the Upper East Fork gregate are available in and adjacent to Basin, and foundation problems Decatur County, principally along the valleys appear to be minor in most of the of Sand Creek, Clifty and Flatrock area. River. 40 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

LITERATURE CITED Foerste, A. F., 1897, A report on the geol­ ogy of the Middle and Upper Silurian rocks Baldwin, Mark, and others, 1922, Soil survey of Clark, Jefferson, Ripley, Jennings, and r of Decatur County, Indiana: U. S. Dept. southern Decatur Counties, Indiana: In­ Agriculture, Bur. Soils, p. 1-19, 1 fig., diana Dept. Geology and Nat. Resources, 1 map. Ann. Rept. 21, p. 213-288, 4 pls.

Bhattacharya, Nityananda, 1962, Weathering ___1898, A report on the Niagara limestone of tills in Indiana: Geo!. Soc. quarries of Decatur, Franklin, and Fayette America Bull., v. 73, p. 1007-1020, 4 Counties, with remarks on the geology of figs. the Middle and Upper Silurian rocks of these and neighboring (Ripley, Jennings, Borden, W. W., 1876, Jennings County: In­ Bartholomew, and Shelby) Counties: In­ diana Geol. Survey, Ann. Rept. 7, p. 146­ diana Dept. Geology and Nat. Resources, 180. Ann. Rept. 22, p. 195-256, 5 pIs.

Chamberlin, T. C., 1883, Terminal moraine Geib, W. J., and Schroeder, F. C., 1912, of the second glacial epoch: U. S. Geo!. Soil survey of Marion County, Indiana: Survey Ann. Rept. 3, p. 291-402, pIs. 26­ Indiana Dept. Geology and Nat. Resources, 35. Ann. Rept. 36, p. 447-468, 1 fig., 1 map.

Collett, John, 1882, GeologyofShelbyCounty: Gravenor, C. P., 1954, Mineralogical and Indiana Dept. Geology and Nat. size analysis of weathering zones on Illi­ Ann. Rept. 11, p. 55-88, 1 map. noian till in Indiana: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 252, p. 159-171, 1 pl., 6 figs., 2 tables. Dawson, T. A., 1941, Outcrop in southern Indiana, pt. 1 of The Devonian formations Gray, H. H., Jenkins, R. D., and Weidman, of Indiana: Indiana Div. Geology, 48 p. , R. M., 1960, Geology of the Huron area, 4 pIs., 20 figs. south-central Indiana: Indi lna Geo!. Sur­ vey Bull. 20, 78 p., 3 pIs., 4 figs., 7 Droste, J. B., Bhattacharya, Nityananda, tables. and Sunderman, J. A., 1962, Clay mineral alteration in some Indiana soils: Clays and Harrison, W., 1959, Petrographic similarity Clay Minerals, v. 9, p. 329-342, 5 figs. of Wisconsin tills in Marion County, Indi­ ana: Indiana Geol. Survey Rept. Prog. 15, M. N., 1882, Geology of Bartholomew 39 p., 5 figs., 4 tables. County; Indiana Dept. Geology and Nat. History, Ann. Rept. 11, p. 150-213, 1 ___1963, Geology of Marion County, Indi­ map. ana: Indiana GeoL Survey Bull. 28, 78 p. , 5 pIs., 11 , 4 tables. 883, Geology of Decatur County: In­ diana Dept. Geology and Nat. History, Hensel, D. R. , and White, J. L., 1960, Time Ann. Rept. 12, p. 100-152. factor and the genesis of soils on Wisconsin till: Seventh Natl. Conf. Clays _884, Geology of Rush County~ Indiana and Clay Minerals Proc., 1958, p. 200­ Dept. Geology and Nat. History, Ann. 215, 9 figs., 3 tables.. Rept. 13, p. 86-115. Horberg, Leland, and Anderson, R. C., 1956, Fenneman, N. M., 1938, Physiography of Bedrock topography and Pleistocene gla­ Eastern United States: New York, Mc­ ciallobes in central United States: Jour. Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 714 p., 7 pIs., Geology, v. 64, p. 101-116, 2 figs., 2 197 figs. tables.

Flint, R. F., and others, 1959, Glacial map Indiana Division of Geology, 1941, Henry of the United States east of the Rocky County supplement to Pub. 108, The sub­ Mountains: GeoL Soc. America. surface strata of Indiana: 4 p. [mimeo.l LITERATURE CITED 41

Indiana SoilSurvey, 1956, Key to Indiana soils Murray, H. H., Leininger, R. K., and Neu­ [chart]: Indiana Soil Survey-U. S. Dept. mann, Henrich, 1954, Vertical changes in Agriculture. mineral composition of a partially weath­ ered Illinoian till labs. I: Geol. Soc. Indiana Water Resources Study Committee, America Bull., v. 65, p. 1289. 1956, Indiana water resources, technical appendix to general report: 127 p., 1 Odell, R. T., and others, 1960, Soils of the north central region of the United States: Kindle, E. M., 1901, The Devonian fossils North Central Regional Pub. 76, Wiscon­ and stratigraphy of Indiana: Indiana Dept. sm Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 544, 192 Geology and Nat. Resources, Ann. Rept. p., 26 figs., 1 map, 5 tables, 7 charts. 25, p. 529-758, 33 pIs. Patton, J. B., 1953a, Gradation and compo­ Kunkel, D. R., and others, 1940, Soil survey sition of Indiana gravels: Rock Products, of Jennings County, Indiana: U. S. Dept. v. 56, no. 5, p. 92-94, 114, 116, 3 figs. Agriculture, Bur. Plant Industry, ser. 1932, no. 40, 53 p., 1 pI., 1 fig., 1 map, 1953b, Limestone resources of southern 6 tables. Indiana [unpub. Ph. D. dissert. I: Indiana Univ., 356 p., 5 pIs., 36 tables. Leverett, Frank, 1899a, The Illinois glacial lobe: U. S. Geol. Survey Mon. 38, 817 p., Patton, J. B., and others, 1956, Geologic 24 pIs., 9 figs. map of Indiana: Indiana Geol. SurveyAtlas Mineral Resources Indiana, Map 9. ___1899b, Wells of southern Indiana: U. S. Geol. SurveyWater-Supply Paper 26, 64 p. Pinsak, A. P., and Shaver, R. H., 1964, The Silurian formations of northern Indi­ ___and Taylor, F. B., 1915, The Pleisto­ ana: Indiana Geol. Survey Bull. 32, 87 p. , cene of Indiana and Michigan and the history 2 pIs., 6 , 6 tables. of the Great Lakes: U. S. Geol. Survey Mon. 53, 529 p., 32 pIs., 15 Price, J. A., 1900, A report upon the Waldron Shale and its horizon in Decatur, Bartholo­ Lineback, J. A. , in preparation, Stratigraphy mew, Shelby, and Rush Counties, Indiana: of the New Albany Shale in Indiana. IndianaDept. Geology and Nat. Resources, Ann. Rept. 24, p. 81-143,4 pIs., 1 fig., Logan, W. N., 1932, Geological map of In­ 1 map. diana: Indiana Dept. Conserv. Pub. 112. Rogers, O. C., and others, 1946, Soil sur­ McGrain, Preston, 1949, Ground water re­ vey of Brown County, Indiana: U. S. Dept. sources of Henry County, Indiana: Indiana Agriculture, Bur. Plant Industry, Soils, Acad. Sci. Proc., v. 58, p. 173-187, 2 and Agr. Eng., ser. 1936, no. 24, 54 p., figs. 1 fig., 1 map, 6 tables.

McGregor, D. J., 1960, Gravels of Indiana: Shaver, R. H., and others, 1961, Stratig­ Indiana GeoI. Survey Rept. Prog. 17, 53 raphy of the Silurian rocks of northern p., 1 pI., 17 figs., 5 tables. Indiana: Indiana Geol. Survey Field Conf. Guidebook 10, 62 p., 10 , 1 table. Malott, C. A., 1922, The physiography of Indiana, in Handbook of Indiana geology: Simmons, C. S., Kunkel, D. R., and Ulrich, Indiana Dept. Conserv. Pub. 21, pt. 2, H. P., 1937, Soil survey of Rush County, p. 59-256, 3 pIs., 51 figs., 1 table. Indiana: U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Bur. Chemistry and Soils, ser. 1930, no. 44, Murray, H. H., compiler, 1955, Sedimen­ 36 p., 1 fig., 1 map, 8 tables. tation and stratigraphy of the Devonian rocks of southeastern Indiana: Indiana Soil Survey staff, 1951, Soil survey manual: GeoI. Survey Field Conf. Guidebook 8, 73 U. S. Dept. Agriculture Handbook 18, 503 p., 7 pIs., 12 tables. p., 11 pIs., 60 figs., 12 tables.

. ~.~~....~~-.~~-....------­ 42 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Steen, W. J., 1961, Preliminary report on Ohio: Indiana Geo!. Survey Bull. 33, 111 ground-water conditions in the vicinity of p., 23 pIs., 1 ,62 tables. - the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton, In­ diana: Indiana Dept. Conserv. Div. Water Wayne, W. J., 1956, Thickness of drift and Resources, 36 p. bedrock physiography of Indiana north of the Wisconsin glacial boundary: Indiana Tharp, W. E., and Simmons, C. S., 1930, GeoL Survey Rept. Prog. 7, 70 p., 1 pI., Soil survey of Hancock County, Indiana: 10 figs. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Bur. Chemistry and Soils, ser. 1925, no. 23, p. 1 28, 1 1958a, Pleistocene sediments in fig., 1 map, tables 1-9. Indiana: Jour. GeOlogy, v. 66, p. 8-15, 1 pl., 1 , 1 table. Thornbury, W. D., and Deane, H. L., 1955, The geology of Miami County, Indiana: In­ Glacial geology of Indiana: In­ diana Geol. Survey Bull. 8, 49 p., 8 pIs. , diana Geo!. Survey Atlas Mineral Re­ 1 fig. sources Indiana, Map 10.

Thornbury, W. D., and Wayne, W. J., in ___1963, Pleistocene formations inIndiana: preparation, Glacial materials of Indiana: Indiana Geol. Survey Bull. 25, 85 p., 4 Indiana Geol. Survey Misc. Map_. pIs., 8 figs., 2 tables.

Ulrich, H. P., and others, 1947, Soil survey Wayne, W. J., and Thornbury, W. D., 1951, of Bartholomew County, Indiana: U. S. Glacial geology of Wabash County, Indiana: Dept. Agriculture, Bur. Plant Industry, Indiana Geol. Survey Bull. 5, 39 p., 7 pIs., Soils, and Agr. , ser. 1936, no. 27, 1 fig. 105 p., 4 pIs., 3 figs., 1 map, 9 tables. Wisconsin stratigraphy of north­ Ulrich, H. P., and others, 1948, Soil survey ern and eastern Indiana: Fifth Bienn. of Johnson County, Indiana: U. S. Dept. Pleistocene Field Conf. Guidebook, p. 1­ Agriculture, Bur. Plant Industry, Soils, 34, pIs. 1-2, figs. 1-2. and Eng., ser. 1938, no. 13, 105 p., 2 ,3 figs., 1 map, 14 tables. Winslow, J. D., 1960, Preliminary neering geology report of damsites on the Utgaard, John, and Perry, T. G., 1964, East Fork of the Muscatatuck River in Trepostomatous bryozoan fauna of the up­ Scott, Jennings, and Jefferson Counties, per part ofthe Whitewater Formation (Cin­ Indiana: Indiana Geo!. Survey Rept. Prog. cinnatian) of eastern Indiana and western 20, 30 p., 5 ,3 figs., 3 tables. 43

APPENDIX r MEASURED SECTIONS Section 1. NEt and NEt NEt sec. 16, T. 7 N., R. 9 E., Jennings County; road cut and spillway cut at mouth of Brush Creek Reservoir about It miles northwest of Butlerville. Description modified from Murray, 1955, p. 31 33, and Wayne, 1963, p. 69 70.

Illinoian Thickness Jessup Formation: (ft) Butlerville Till Member: 16. Clay: silty, sandy, light .yellowish-gray, mottled, noncalcareous - 5.0 15. Till: sandy, clayey, brown, noncalcareous ------2.0 14. Till: conglomeratic, gray, noncalcareous; brown along joint planes ------5.0 13. Till: conglomeratic, gray, calcareous; material is oxidized to brown joint planes; basal part of unit less strongly calcareous than remainder; unit contains inclusions of dark yellowish-brown noncalcareous till. This unit thickens considerably on east side of where it contains an abundance of fossil wood ------15. 0

Formation: Cloverdale Till Member: 12. Till: clayey, dark yellowish-brown, noncalcareous; contains abundant chert pebbles and some quartzite pebbles; interpreted as part of a truncated paleosol ------.h..Q Total thickness of Pleistocene section ------28. 0 Devonian System: Geneva Dolomite: , 11. Sand: yellowish-white, fine-grained; composed largely of authigenic quartz; loosely consolidated; contains a few fossils ------1. 0 10. Sand: yellowish-gray, thick-bedded; composed largely of authigenic quartz and interstitial calcite; basal contact smooth ------8 Total thickness of Geneva Dolomite ------2. Silurian System: Laurel Limestone: 9. Limestone: medium bluish-gray, brownish-yellow in upper few beds, thick-bedded, dolomitic; contains beds of light-gray chert ------9. 2 8. Limestone: light bluish-gray, thick-bedded; contains a few zones of dark bluish-gray siliceous nodules ------12.0 7. Limestone: light bluish-gray, medium-grained, medium-bedded, moderately fossiliferous, glauconitic. The upper part is the floor ------5.2 6. Limestone: pale yellowish-gray, fossiliferous with matrix; cherty ------5.6 44 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Silurian System--Continued Thickness Laurel Limestone- - Continued (ft) - 5. Limestone: gray to orange-brown; thin- to thick-bedded; lower part fossiliferous; cliff forming ------­ 5.3 4. Limestone: brownish-gray, thin-bedded, argillaceous ------1.4 3. Limestone: pale yellowish-gray, mottled with yellowish-brown, medium-bedded, moderately fossiliferous ------1.4 2. Siltstone: medium bluish-gray, thin-bedded, calcareous, clayey; contains a few limestone nodules and scattered fossils ------1.6 1. Limestone: yellowish-brown to gray, mottled, medium-bedded; bedding surface irregular; in places fossiliferous; base not exposed ------2. 5 Total exposed thickness of Laurel Limestone ----- 44. 2

Section 2. S~NEt sec. 6, T. 8 N., R. 7 E., Bartholomew County; Meshberger Stone Co, quarry about miles northeast of Elizabethtown. Description modified from Murray, 1955, p. 29-31.

Wisconsin Stage: Thickness Trafalgar Formation: (ft) Center Grove Till Member: 24. Till: sandy, clayey, brown, noncalcareous; upper part of unit severely weathered ------5. 0 23. Till: very sandy, silty, yellowish-brown, calcareous; contains wood fragments in some places ----- 15.0 Illinoian Stage: Jessup Formation: Butlerville Till Member: 22. Till: clayey, brown, noncalcareous; represents lower part of buried soil profile ------3. 0 21. Till: clayey, medium-gray, calcareous -----­ Total thickness of Pleistocene section ------30. 0 Devonian System: New Albany Shale: 20. Shale: dark brownish-gray, mottled, weathered ------2.7 19. Shale: gray, platy, finely micaceous, hard ------­ Total thickness of N~w Albany Shale ------3.0 North Vernon Limestone: 18. Limestone: upper 1. 1 ft dark gray, dense, fossiliferous; lower 1. 5 ft gray to tan, coarsely crystalline, fossiliferous ------2. 6 Total thickness of North Vernon Limestone ------2.6 Jeffersonville Limestone: 17. Limestone:. upper 3.0 ft tan, crystalline, medium bedded, fossiliferous; lower 4.4 ft tan, fine grained, mottled; contains fossil detritus. A zone of lenticular and nodular chert, 0.4 ft in average thickness, occurs 1. 0 ft from base ------7.4 16. Limestone: tan, fine-grained, dolomitic; black shale partings occur at base and top ------1. 3

----.... --.--­ APPENDIX 45

Thickness Devonian System--Continued (ft) Jeffersonville Limestone--Continued r 15. Limestone: gray, dense, dolomitic 3.6 14. Limestone: tan, dense, chalky, dolomitic - 1.0 13. Limestone: brown, dense, crystalline; laminated in upper part ------1.8 12. Limestone: tan, granular, porous, dolomitic; shows scattered calcite faces; contains breccia in upper part ------1. 1 11. Limestone: tan, dense, dolomitic; laminated in upper part ------3.5 10. Dolomite: light-tan, nearly white when dry, chalky, soft, slightly banded ------6.4 9. Dolomite: brown, chalky, banded ------1.3 8. Limestone: tan, dense, laminated, dolomitic; fractures cemented with calcite ------2.2 7, Dolomite: gray, chalky, argillaceous, banded --- 1.3 6, Limestone: upper 1. 0 ft gray, finely granular, chalky; contains scattered calcite crystals. Lower 1. 7 ft gray to dark gray brown, massive, dolomitic, to dense ------2. 7 5. Limestone: light-gray, granular, clastic, dolomitic, soft; contains fossils and fossil fragments ------8.9 4. Limestone: to light-brown, dense to fine-grained, dolomitic, fossiliferous ----- 3 Total thickness of Jeffersonville Limestone ------45. Geneva Dolomite: 3. Dolomite: brownish-gray to chocolate-brown, finely granular to saccharoidal, massive ------3.8 2. Dolomite: medium-brown to chocolate-brown, granular to saccharoidal, massive; contains large masses of white to yellow coarsely crystalline calcite ------1 Total thickness of Geneva Dolomite ------29.9 Louisville Limestone: 1. Limestone: dark fine-grained, crystalline, massive, dolomitic. Measured to water level ------2 Total thickness of Louisville Limestone ------4.2

Section 3. swt SEt NWt sec. 8, T. 11 N., R. 4 E., Johnson County; stream cut along Buckhart Creek 500 feet north of Indiana Highway 252 about 2 miles southeast of Trafalgar. Section measured by William J. Wayne; description modified from Wayne, 1963, p. 73-74.

Wisconsin Stage: Thickness Trafalgar Formation: (ft) Cartersburg Till Member: 11. Silt loam: light-gray; leaf litter at top -- -. ­ ------1.3 10. Till: pale-brown, dark-brown fractures, noncalcareous - - - -. ------1. 6 9. Till: silty, pebbly, pale-brown, calcareous ------2.6 8. Silt: light olive-gray, noncalcareous, porous ------1. a 7. Sand: clayey, dark-brown, noncalcareous ------1. 6 6. Silt: yellowish-brown, calcareous, laminated ------1. 6 46 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Wisconsin Stage--Continued Thickness Trafalgar Formation--Continued (ft) Cartersburg Till Member- Continued r 5. Till: silty, conglomeratic, dark grayish-brown in upper part, dark-gray in lower part, calcareous, compact ------6. 9 Center Grove Till Member: 4. Silt: dark-gray to dark-brown, calcareous except in upper 5 cm, fossiliferous; upper 15 cm of unit contains both mollusk shells and plant remains; interpreted as loess ------~ - 1. 0 3. Gravel: sandy, dark-brown, calcareous ------1. 0 2. Till: stony, calcareous; oxidized surface is dark yellowish brown; lower part of unit contains contorted lenses of strong- brown noncalcareous till and fragments of wood ------6.6 Illinoian Stage: Jessup Formation: Butlerville Till Member: 1. Till: stony, strong-brown, noncalcareous ------8 Total thickness of section ------27.0

Section 4. SEi NE~ sec. 31, T. 11 N., R. 6 E., Shelby County; stream cut about miles east of Edinburg. Section measured by William J. Wayne in August 1950.

Wisconsin Stage: Thickness A therton Formation: (ft) Outwash facies: 5. Sand: yellowish-brown; thin gravel layer at base ------6.0 Trafalgar Formation: Center Grove Till Member: 4. Till: dark grayish-brown, calcareous; contains and inclusions of wood and of gray noncalcareous materials interpreted as paleosol base very uneven; maximum thickness ------4.0 Illinoian Stage: Jessup Formation: Butlerville Till Member: 3. Till: sandy, pebbly, yellowish-red, calcareous, very compact ------3. 0 2. Till: sandy, pebbly, gray to brown, calcareous, compact; contains wood fragments at base ------2.0 1. Silt: dark-gray, calcareous, compact; contains wood fragments at top; base concealed ------1. 5 Total thickness of section ------16.5

Section 5. Center Nwi sec. 4, T. 12 N., R. 9 E., Rush County; stream cut along Flatrock River about miles northwest of Milroy. Section measured by William J; Wayne; description modified from Wayne and Thornbury, 1955, p. 25-26.

Wisconsin Thickness Trafalgar Formation: (ft) Cartersburg Till Member: 10. Till: silty, sandy, yellowish-brown, calcareous ------8. 0 APPENDIX 47

Wisconsin Stage--Contitlued Thickness Trafalgar Formation- -Continued (ft) Cartersburg Till Member- -Continued 9. Till: silty, sandy, stony, brownish-gray, calcareous ------6.0 8. Gravel and sand: silty, brown, calcareous; unit is lenticular ------2. 5 Center Grove Till Member: 7. Silt: massive, gray to brownish-gray, calcareous, fossiliferous; contains scattered gastropod shells; interpreted as loess ------'------1. 5 6. Till: pebbly, sandy, dark olive-gray, calcareous; contains inclusions of noncalcareous clay and till ------4. 0 Illinoian Stage: Jessup Formation: Butlerville Till Member: 5. Clay: silty, sandy, medium-gray mottled with dark reddish-brown, noncalcareous; blocky structure; upper part of unit contains minor amounts of peaty material; interpreted as a paleosol------2. 4 4. Till: gray to brown, noncalcareous; secondary limonite in upper part ------1. 0 3. Till: medium-gray, calcareous ------1. 0 2. Gravel: silty, grayish-brown, calcareous ------2. 0 1. Till: very silty, medium-gray, calcareous; base concealed ------3. 0 Total thickness of section ------31. 4

Section 6. swt NEt SEt sec. 33, T. 15 N., R. 5 E., Marion County; stream cut along Big Run about 3 miles north of Acton. Section measured by W. Harrison; description modified from Harrison, 1959, p. 27.

Wisconsin Stage: Thickness Trafalgar Formation: (ft) Cartersburg Till Member: 7. Till: upper half of unit is oxidized; Harrison sample 18 ------28.0 Center Grove Till Member: 6. Silt: dark-gray, humus-rich ------O. 1 5. Sand: coarse; oxidized in places ------1. 0 4. Silt: unoxidized, unfossiliferous, contorted; Harrison sample 20 ------O. 5 3. Silt: slightly fossiliferous, contorted; contains wood fragments; Harrison sample 20 ------2.0 2. Pebble gravel -- -.------0.5 1. Till: gray, dense; Harrison sample 22; base concealed ------3. 0 Total thickness of section ------35.1 48 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

WELL RECORDS

Well record 1. NWt NEt SEt sec. 24, T. 8 N., R. 5 E., Bartholomew County. Waterbury r No. 1 Lee; permit no. 5373. Surface elevation 641 ft; total depth 1,608 ft. Descriptions of un­ consolidated deposits from driller's log on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses); descriptions of bedrock units summarized from sample by Andrew J. Hreha, Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey.

Thickness Depth Unconsolidated deposits, 69 ft: (ft) (ft) 1. Clay (till; Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------16 16 2. Sand, soupy ------6 22 3. Clay, yellow (probably till; probably Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------31 53 4. Sand, black ------4 57 5. Clay ------7 64 6. Sand, black ------5 69 New Albany Shale, 71 ft: 7. Shale, dark-gray ------19 88 8. Shale, greenish-gray ------22 110 9. Shale, brownish-gray ------14 124 10. Shale, black ------16 140 Jeffersonville Limestone, 58 ft: 11. Limestone, light-gray, finely crystalline ------34 174 12. Dolomite, yellowish-brown, medium crystalline ---- 24 198 Geneva Dolomite, 16 ft: 13. Dolomite, brown, finely crystalline ------16 214 Waldron Shale?, 25 ft: 14. Dolomite, light-gray, argillaceous ---- 25 239 Laurel Limestone? and Osgood Formation?, 70 ft: 15. Limestone, light-gray, medium crystalline 24 263 16. Dolomite, gray to yellowish-brown, finely crystalline 46 309 Brassfield Limestone, 22 ft: 17. Dolomite, yellowish-brown, finely crystalline, cherty 18 327 18. Limestone, light yellowish-brown, fossiliferous 4 331 Richmond, Maysville, and Eden Groups, undifferentiated, 689 ft: 19. Limestone, gray to yellowish-brown, in part fossiliferous ------194 525 20. Shale, gray to greenish-gray, calcareous; some gray limestone ------495 1,020 Trenton Limestone, 94 ft: 21. Limestone, white to light yellowish-brown, in part cherty, medium ------94 1, 114 Black River Limestone, 430 ft: 22. Limestone, white to light yellowish-brown, very finely crystalline ------430 1,544 Joachim Dolomite, 56 ft: 23. Dolomite, yellowish-brown, very finely crystalline; thin gray calcareous shale at base ------56 1,600 St. Peter Sandstone, 8 ft drilled: 24. Sandstone, white, coarse, unconsolidated ------8 1,608 APPENDIX 49

Well record 2. SEt sec. 36, T. 9 N., R. 4 E., Bartholomew County. Surface elevation 675 ft; total depth 222 ft. Driller's log on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey r (geologic interpretations in parentheses). Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Soil ------2 2 2. Hardpan, yellow (oxidized till; Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------10 12 3. Clay, yellow, soft ------6 18 4. Clay, yellow, wet ------7 25 5. Clay, brown ------2 27 6. Shale, black and brown ------­

Well record 3. Columbus, Ind.; NE~ swi sec. 25, T. 9 N., R. 5 E., Bartholomew County. City of Columbus test well no. 3, drilled by Layne-Northern Co. Surface elevation 611 ft; total depth 69 ft. Driller's log on file in the Geology Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic in­ terpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Soil, sand (Martinsville Formation, alluvial facies) ------8 8 2. Gravel (mainly Atherton Formation, outwash facies; upper part is probably Martinsville Formation, alluvial facies) ------29 37 3. Clay (till; probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------23 60 4. Sand, coarse (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) - - - 4 64 5. Clay (till; probably Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------5 69 6. Shale ------­

Well record 4. NEt sec. 12, T. 9 N., R. 8 E., Decatur County. Surface elevation 895 ft; total depth 959 ft. Driller's log of gas well on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) 1. Clay, yellow (oxidized till; Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------77 77 2. Sand and gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) --- - 17 94 3. Hardpan, gray, clayey (unoxidized till; Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------17 111 4. Clay, red, hard (weathered limestone, at least in part) ------30 141 5. Limestone ------­ 50 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Well record 5. SEt swt NWt sec. 13, T. 9 N., R. 9 E., Decatur County. Surface elevation 886 ft; total depth 909 ft. Driller's log of gas well on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana - Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses). Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Topsoil - - - - - 3 3 2. Clay, yellow (till; Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------21 24 3. Gravel, sandy ------1 25 4. Clay, brown (till, probably Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------9 34 5. Gumbo, red (weathered limestone) - - 12 46 6. Limestone --­

Well record 6. NWt NWt sec. 2, T. 10 N., R. 3 E., BrownCounty. Blackwell No.1 Moore; permit no. 11574. Surface elevation 965 ft; total depth 875 ft. Descriptions summarized from sample study by Andrew J. Hreha, Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey.

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) Unconsolidated deposits, 15 ft: 1. Silt, light yellowish-brown -- 15 15 Borden Group, undifferentiated upper formations, 335 ft: 2. Siltstone, gray to brownish-gray, and some gray shale - 335 350 New Providence Shale, 178 ft: 3. Shale, greeniSh-gray ---- 160 510 4. Shale, reddish-brown and greenish-gray 18 528 Rockford Limestone, 7 ft: 5. Dolomite, greenish-brown, finely crystalline - 7 535 New Albany Shale, 96 ft: 6. Shale, black and greenish-gray 96 631 Jeffersonville Limestone, 83 ft: 7. Limestone, light yellowish-brown, finely crystalline, cherty ------47 678 8. Limestone, yellowish-brown, dolomitic, very finely crystalline -- - 9 687 9. Dolomite, light yellowish-brown, arenaceous, very finely crystalline ----- 27 714 Geneva Dolomite, 41 ft: 10. Dolomite, brown, finely crystalline ----- 41 755 Laurel Limestone? and Osgood Formation?, 65'ft: 11. Dolomite and limestone, l~ght-gray, very finely crystalline, cherty ------25 780 12. Limestone, dolomitic and argillaceous, light-gray to light yellowish-brown, finely crystalline ------40 820 Brassfield Limestone, 30 ft: 13. Limestone, light yellowish-brown to light pinkish-brown, medium crystalline ------30 850 14. No record ------25 875

~------_..._-_...------­ ---- APPENDIX 51

Well record 7. Greensburg, Ind.; W~swt NEt sec. 2, T. 10 N., R. 9 E., Decatur County. Surface elevation 945 ft; total depth 939 ft. Driller's log on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana r Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses). Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) 1. Clay (till; Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------18 18 2. Clay, (till; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------5 23 3. Clay, rocky (till; possibly Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------22 45 4. Clay, blue (unoxidized till; probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------15 60 5. Sand and gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------4 64 6. Broken stone and gravel ------5 69 7. Limestone ------­

Well record 8. Adams, Ind.; sec. 19?, T. 11 N., R. 9 E., DecaturCounty. Surface eleva­ tion about 890 ft. Log of gas well from Leverett, 1899b, p. 50 (current geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) 1. Till (Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------19 19 2. Sand (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------4 23 3. Till, blue (probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------52 75 4. Gravel aild sand (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------15 90 5. Till, yellow (oxidized till; probably Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------5 95 6. Clay, blue, Oily, with few pebbles (unoxidized till; probably Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------16 111 7. Gravel, coarse (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------15 126 8. Till, blue, hard (Jessup Formation) ------20 146

Well record 9. Franklin, Ind.; SE cor. sec. 14 or NE cor. sec. 23, T. 12 N., R. 4 E., Johnson County. Surface elevation 7 3() ft; total depth 114ft. Log of water well reported to Leverett (1899b, p. 41; Leverett and Taylor, 1915, p. 92) by D. A. Owen (current geologic i:r.terpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Sand and gravel (Trafalgar Formation, kame facies) - ---_ ..... _- 18 18 2. Till, blue (Trafalgar Formation) ------40 58 3. Sand, fine ------3 61 4. Till, blue; probably pre-Wisconsin, according to Leverett. (Jessup Formation) ------50 111 5. Gravel ------3 114 52 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Well record 10. Shelbyville, Ind.; sec. 6, T. 12 N., R. 7 E., Shelby County. Surface elevation 755 ft; total depth 53 ft. Driller's log from Collett, 1882, p. 65 (geologic interpreta­ - tions in parentheses). Thickness Depth 1. Alluvial soil (upper part is probably Martinsville (ft) (ft) Formation, alluvial facies; lower part is probably Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------8 8 2. Gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------2 10 3. Fluvatile silt (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------1 11 4. Boulder clay (till; Trafalgar Formation) ------40 51 5. Sand and fine gravel ------1 52 6. Limestone ------1 53

Well record 11. NWt NWt SEt sec. 5, T. 12 N., R. 9 E., Rush County. Surface elevation 946 ft; total depth 904 ft. Driller's log of gas well on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey.

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Topsoil and clay ------11 11 2. Sand ------1 12 3, Gravel and clay ------6 18 4. Clay ------23 41 5. Gravel ------5 46 6. Clay ------3 49 7. Gravel ------1 50 8. Limestone ­

Well record 12. Bargersville, Ind.; swi Swt NEt sec. 35, T. 13 N., R. 3 E., Johnson County. Surface elevation 810 ft; total depth 130 ft. Driller's log of water well on file in the Geology Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Topsoil ------3 3 2. Hardpan, yellow (oxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------8 11 3. Clay, blue, gravelly (unoxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar .Formation) --- 4 15 4. Gravel, dry, dirty ------2 17 5, Clay, blue, gravelly (unoxidized till; ,probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------16 33 6. Gravel, yellow, dry ------4 37 7. Clay, gray, sandy (till; probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------10 47 8, Sand, yellow, fine-grained ------7 54 9. Sand, muddy, packy ------7 61 10. Sand, gray, fine - grained ------9 70 11. Clay, blue, gravelly (unoxidized till; Jessup Formation) ------13 83 12. Shale, brown ------­ APPENDIX 53

Well record 13. swt SW~ sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., Johnson County. Weddel No, 1 Stillebower; permit no. 6636. Surface elevation 751 ft; total depth 1,057 ft. Driller's log on file r in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey. Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Soil ­------1 1 2. Clay, ------5 6 3. Sand, soupy ------2 8 4. Clay, sandy ------14 22 5. Sand and gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------35 57 6. Sand ------5 62 7. Clay, sandy ------22 84 8. Gravel and sand (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------15 99 9, Clay, sandy ------10 109 10. Sand and gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------17 126 1I. Clay ------3 129 12. Limestone ------­

Well record 14. NWt SEt NEt sec. 29, T. 13 N., R. 8 E., Shelby County. Surface eleva­ tion 880 ft; total depth 900 ft. Driller's log on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) 1. Clay, yellow (oxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------18 18 2. Clay, blue, gravelly (unoxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------31 49 3. Gravel (A therton Formation, outwash facies) ------5 54 4. Clay, blue (unoxidized till; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation, but possibly Jessup Formation) ------6 60 5. Sand, yellow, fine-grained (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------25 85 6. Broken stone ------5 90 7. Stone ------­

Well record 15. Morristown, Inq.; swt swt sec. 12, T. 14 N., R. 7 E., Shelby County. Surface elevation 826 ft; total depth 864 ft. Driller's log on file in the Petroleum Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth eft) (ft)

1. Topsoil ------1 1 2. Gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------10 11 3. Clay, blue (unoxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------16 27 4. Gravel ------4 31 54 GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER EAST FORK DRAINAGE BASIN, INDIANA

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) - 5. Clay, yellow (till; possibly Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------9 40 6. Gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------16 56 7. Clay, brown, sticky ------25 81 8. Limestone ------­

Well record 16. NWt NWt NEt sec. 33, T. 15 N., R. 10 E., Rush County. Surface eleva­ tion 1, 020ft; total depth 1, 258ft. Driller's log on file inthe Petroleum Section, IndianaGeological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Topsoil ------2 2 2. Clay (till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------17 19 3. Sand (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------4 23 4. Clay and gravel (mostly till; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------10 33 5. Gravel (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) - - - 4 37 6. Gravel and clay (mostly till; probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------13 50 7. Sand and clay (mostly till; probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------10 60 8. Sand (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) - - 38 98 9. Clay, blue (unoxidized till; probably Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------16 114 10. Gravel------2 116 11. Stone, shelly ------­

Well record 17. NWtNEtSEt sec. 19, T. 17 N., R. 7 E., Hancock County. Surface eleva­ tion about 880 ft; total depth 218 ft. Driller's log of water well from Steen, 1961, p. 17 (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Clay, yellow, and fill ------10 10 2. Sand (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------29 39 3. Hardpan, yellow (oxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------6 45 4. Hardpan, gray (unoxidized till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------60 105 5. Clay, blue (unoxidized till; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ----- 60 165 6. Clay, red (till; probably Jessup Formation) ------37 202 7 . Sand ------2 204 8. Limestone, white, soft ------­

------..--~-..~---....------... -.-~.---... - ..~.... ~-- APPENDIX 55

Well record 18. New Castle, Ind.; swt NWt sec. 15, T. 17 N., R. 10 E., Henry County. Surface elevation about 1,020 ft; total depth 160 ft. Driller's log of water well on file in the Geology Section, Indiana Geological Survey (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft)

1. Fill ------15 15 2. Gravel, coarse (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------20 35 3. Clay, gravelly (till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------34 69 4. Sand, soupy (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------25 94 5. Gravel, coarse (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------21 115 6. Clay, blue (till, unoxidized; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------4 119 7. Gravel, muddy (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------13 132 8. Clay, blue, sticky (till, unoxidized; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------10 142 9. Sand, fine-grained, soupy (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------12 154 10. Clay, sticky (till; possibly Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------6 160

Well record 19. New Castle, Ind.; swt SEt sec. 15, T. 17 N., R. 10 E., Henry County. Charles E. Jackson No. 1 well (gas). Surface elevation 1,040 ft; total depth 923 ft. Driller's log from Indiana Division of Geology, 1941, p. 3 (geologic interpretations in parentheses).

Thickness Depth (ft) (ft) 1. Clay, yellow (till; Cartersburg Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------80 80 2. Gravel, sandy, gray (Atherton Formation, outwash facies) ------80 160 3. Clay, brown, sticky (till; probably Center Grove Till Member, Trafalgar Formation) ------80 240 4. Clay, red, muddy (till; probably Butlerville Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------75 315 5. Quicksand, dark-gray ------1 316 6. Mud, varicolored, with streaks of peat (till; possibly Cloverdale Till Member, Jessup Formation) ------9 325 7. Clay, red, muddy (limestone soil) ------15 340 8. Lime, blue, soft, rotten (weathered limestone) ------4 344